00 02/04/2009 08:50
“Basilio (330-379 d.C.) disse: 'Rigettare alcuna cosa che si trova nelle Scritture, o ricevere alcune cose che non sono scritte, è un segno evidente d'infedeltà, è un atto di orgoglio... il fedele deve credere con pienezza di spirito tutte le cose che sono nelle Scritture senza togliere o aggiungere nulla' (Basilio, Lib. de Fid. - regul. moral. reg. 80 citato da Luigi Desanctis in La tradizione, terza ed. Firenze 1868, pag. 19);”



La prima parte non esiste(a quelle coordinate almeno), mentre esiste la seconda messa in grassetto, che amplio: “Che cosa è proprio del cristiano? La fede opera mediante l’amore. Che cosa è proprio della fede? Piena e indubbia certezza della verità delle parole ispirate da Dio, non soggetta a oscillazione dovuta a qualsiasi pensiero, sia esso indotto da necessità fisica o camuffato sotto aspetto di pietà. Che cosa deve fare il fedele? Il confermarsi con tale piena certezza al significato delle parole dalla Scrittura, e non osare togliere o aggiungere alcunché”.

Ora, chiunque con un po’ di senno si potrà rendere conto che qui San Basilio non sta affatto parlando della Traditio (anche perché nel brano che vedremo dopo egli la ritiene fonte della rivelazione al pari della Scrittura). Qui Basilio sta dando delle istruzioni di vita, delle regole morali, e sta semplicemente dicendo che se la Scrittura afferma qualcosa il fedele deve accettarlo e non pensare di poter buttare via quello che gli pare e piace, dice infatti che è proprio del fedele la “piena e indubbia certezza della verità delle parole ispirate da Dio, non soggetta a oscillazione dovuta a qualsiasi pensiero”. Questa incitamento ad attenersi alla Bibbia non c’entra nulla con la Traditio( né la esclude, attenersi alla Traditio infatti non è in contrasto con la Bibbia fino a prova contraria), questo brano è un’ esortazione a non perdere fiducia nella parola di Dio. Inoltre uno dei motivi per cui la Traditio non è in contrasto con la Scrittura è che proprio dalla Traditio si sa quale dei sensi possibili attribuibili alla Scrittura è quello ortodosso, motivo per cui al massimo la Scrittura è contro la Traditio nelle letture astoriche che ne dà il protestantesimo).
San Basilio come tutti i Padri ortodossi non avrebbe mai potuto condannare la Tradizione, un Padre della Chiesa al contrario lotta contro le tradizioni umane (quelle di cui parlava Cristo contro certi farisei), non contro la Tradizione di origine divino-apostolica.
Su cosa San Basilio pensi della Traditio si veda questo inequivocabile brano (spero che sappiate l’inglese, comunque per chi non lo sapesse domani o posdomani vado in dipartimento e fotocopio una traduzione italiana):

Dal De Spiritu Sancto, 65-66 (PG 32,188):


65. The word "in," say our opponents, "is exactly appropriate to the Spirit, and sufficient for every thought concerning Him. Why then, they ask, have we introduced this new phrase, saying, "with the Spirit" instead of "in the Holy Spirit," thus employing an expression which is quite unnecessary, and sanctioned by no usage in the churches? Now it has been asserted in the previous portion of this treatise that the word" in" has not been specially allotted to the Holy Spirit, but is common to the Father and the Son. It has also been, in my opinion, sufficiently demonstrated that, so far from detracting anything from the dignity of the Spirit, it leads all, but those whose thoughts are wholly perverted, to the sublimest height. It remains for me to trace the origin of the word" with;" to explain what force it has, and to show that it is in harmony with Scripture.
66. Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one? The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight. Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar. In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. "Dogma" and "Kerugma" are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of"dogmas" difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader: Thus we all look to the East at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East. Genesis 2:8 We pray standing, on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason. On the day of the resurrection (or "standing again" Grk. ἀ νάστασις ) we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we rose with Christ, and are bound to "seek those things which are above," Colossians 3:1 but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore, though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but one. For he says "There was evening, and there was morning, one day," as though the same day often recurred. Now "one" and "eighth" are the same, in itself distinctly indicating that really "one" and "eighth" of which the Psalmist makes mention in certain titles of the Psalms, the state which follows after this present time, the day which knows no waning or eventide, and no successor, that age which ends not or grows old. Of necessity, then, the church teaches her own foster children to offer their prayers on that day standing, to the end that through continual reminder of the endless life we may not neglect to make provision for our removal thither. Moreover all Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in the age to come. For that one and first day, if seven times multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost; for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the same, making fifty revolutions through the like intervening days. And so it is a likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending, as in a circling course, at the same point. On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for by their plain reminder they, as it were, make our mind to dwell no longer in the present but in the future. Moreover every time we fall upon our knees and risefrom off them we show by the very deed that by our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our Creator were called back to heaven.

www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm
__________________________________________________