At some point, we pray, you will no longer find this difficult. But it can only be done by "prayer and fasting". There is a knowledge that is found only through suffering and deprivation which is not akin to anything that can be learned in any other way, and which many of those living in the world don't come to know, even Christian pentacostals.
Kylissa, If we read Orthodox Books on Holy, Living Tradition, we'll see our theologians basically saying the same thing about Holy Tradition. Meyendorf, Schmemman and others always refer to our Tradition as a "Living Tradition", which means that the Tradition is essentially tied to "Living Persons" and cannot be separated from persons, as it live inside of them.
If you had, as a pentecostal, truly experienced the Holy Common Affective Experience of the Holy Orthodox Church, then why are your here? I would suggest that you are here SEEKING, because you have not been convinced that those earlier affective religious experiences constitute the fullness of the Christian Faith. That is my guess. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Paul speaks to the reality that those in the Church and those coming into the Church are at differing levels of spiritual understanding. There are some who are able to digest strong meat, while others are in need of being nursed in the faith by being fed milk and honey. For there sake I will refrain from posting further clarifications on authority and its variants/gradients in meaning.
OK.
Your words have made this perhaps something closer to what I can understand.
I'm still very - opposed? - to the idea of accepting what you propose as the totality of Tradition. Something inside of me, and what I have been taught, do not agree.
But if I understand you correctly, you are talking about something valuable. I don't have a word for it - it seems something more akin to "mindset" or "wisdom" or something like that, rather than "Tradition" ... but I would certainly be willing to consider it as the Traditional way of understanding.
Not that I speak from much experience, mind you. Of course I am still just learning all of this. But I might have experiences which help me to understand which some inquirers/catechumens might not have experienced, since mine was gained outside of the Church.
And yes, as a Pentecostal, I have experienced certain "affective" experiences. I think that is not at all what you are speaking of though? My first understanding of the surface of your words seems to be that kind of thing, and I would quickly reject such an idea of that being "Tradition" or even any part of it. It is far too subjective, individual, and potentially deceptive. But I don't think that's the kind of thing you are talking about at all.
What gives me the clue to what you may really be speaking of is "prayer and fasting" and "suffering and deprivation". I am not a stranger to either prayer (extensive times spent in prayer), nor to fasting. Rather than that though - I will say ... there have been other kinds of suffering. God has seen fit to allow me to experience things that are not typical, at least not in the US. And when compiled - well, I must admit, I've wondered sometimes.
And I did have the introduction to faith through monastics and mystics - so certain of the experiences are things I understand.
So - perhaps I understand what you mean. There is a deep understanding - for me really a reversal of my whole way of thinking - that comes from these kinds of experiences. If I understand you correctly, and if you are right that it has an important place in Orthodoxy, then perhaps that is why it was so comfortable for me so quickly, as perhaps I was fitted for it before I ever heard of the Church.
I think I will leave it at that. Or almost. What caught my attention is actually something you replied to someone else:
Tradition exists for the sake of the inner experiences, is derived from those experiences, and depends on those experiences. It is the experience itself that is the reason for Tradition, and Tradition loses its meaning if separated from that, and can even be harmful when it is. For Tradition was made for man, and man for Tradition. They go hand in and and do not exist properly without each other.
I am not qualified to examine and judge each of the statements you make here. However, I will say that I can certainly appreciate some of it.
Having begun these kinds of experiences (if I understand you correctly) without any spiritual guidance, wisdom, or knowledge, I can say that apart from the Church, such inner experiences can be dangerous. Within the framework of the Church, I am sure they are exceeding valuable. God has made them valuable for me, but it took many years and many things happening, and mistakes of my own got in the way and caused problems. So ... If I consider Tradition to be a framework for that kind of experience, and to exist for the purpose of guiding it, I can agree with you.
And the thing I was initially concerned with (well, among others) was whether Tradition itself DID possibly exist without any importance being placed on this kind of experience. I didn't see it from the outside, and I thought it might not exist. However, it did not take too much inquiry into the Church to find that it was indeed alive and well, and formed a very important part of Orthodox spirituality.
Without that, it (the Church, and Tradition) is just a theological framework. And as such, it certainly WOULD have the potential to be dangerous, as you say. But I delighted to have found the experiential/mystical/personal/Holy Spirit aspect to be quite alive and well within the Church, which was a huge part of the reason I was willing to go forward.
[ETA: re-reading this, I realize the personal spirituality I speak of here sounds like just so much "pentecostal experientialism" ... and I'm talking about something much deeper, but I don't have the words to explain. Just wanted to say, I'm not just trying to fit pentecostal experiences into the Church, not at all. I just can't seem to find the words for what I DO mean.]
I have found no other Church that includes both a measure of strong theology and Truth, as well as the kind of emphasis on personal spirituality and growth that I was seeking.
I guess to sum this up - I would say that I agree with much of what you say. And I am not one to be able to judge.
But as I understand it, "Tradition" properly is something else, and to my understanding would more be the framework, guidance, and everything else that allows the kind of experience you are speaking of to happen. They can't be separated (or ought not be - as we both commented on various dangerous situations). It would be like separating the body and spirit and expecting either part to be a full human (though my analogy is poor - it's the best I can do).
So while I don't agree with your language/definition of Tradition, I will say that I greatly appreciate what you are speaking of, if I do indeed understand what you mean.
The way in which you initially said it though - either we disagree, or it was confusing as to your intent. Again, not that it is my place to correct - certainly not! - but my understanding of "Tradition" proper cannot exist without Scripture, interpretation, the Liturgy, and all else that holds us within its bounds and guides us.
Thank you for your further clarification. I hope that I have understood you properly.
