The Spirit has descended!
Can you point to a specific issue, instead of a vague notion that faith differs?
Toll houses is one such issue
I had been in four autocephalous Churches (including three of the ancient patriarchates) and through eight others and an autonomous Church (Finland) for years before I had even heard of toll houses.
They seem-apart from some extreme enthusiasts (most of whom I've come across share old calendarist views), they seem to form the obsession of apologists for the Vatican who, in desperation, profer toll houses as proof of some need of a supreme pontiff. No Orthodox Church has adopted them as an article of Faith, though ROCOR has banned discussion of them, because of people trying to make theologoumena into dogma. Speaking of theologoumena:
and various positions concerning the particular/partial judgment. Some say that once you die your fate is sealed. Others say things could change.
And they can have their opinions, as long as they admit that God, Who alone knows, has revealed very little on the matter (odd how the Vatican's "private revelations" tries to make up for this silence). As long as that is accepted one can speculate-although speculation is never encouraged in Orthodoxy-as much as one wants. The Holy Synod of ROCOR put it very well:
Taking all of the forgoing into consideration, the Synod of Bishops resolve: In the deliberations on life after death one must in general keep in mind that it is not pleased the Lord to reveal to us very much aside from the fact that the degree of a soul's blessedness depends on how much a man's life on the earth has been truly Christian, and the degree of a man's posthumous suffering depends upon the degree of sinfulness. To add conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal to us is not beneficial to our salvation, and all disputes in this domain are now especially detrimental, the more so when they become the object of the discussion of people who have not been fully established in the Faith. Acrid polemic apart from the spirit of mutual love turns such an exchange of opinions from a deliberation into an argument about words. The positive preaching of truths of the Church may be profitable, but not disputes in an area which is not subject to our investigation, but which evokes in the unprepared reader false notions on questions of importance to our salvationhttp://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_debate.aspx
Speculation on such matters is how the Vatican came up with purgatory and the merit system, which it tried to cram down our thoats at Brest, etc.
Some say that holy orders is eternal. Other protest not.
I was surprised to find out that it is not eternal. I was one of the few who evidently thought it was, but seeing the majority teaching-and the one which is implimented by those in involved and in charge of such things, i.e. the bishops and priests-I have found such is not so. So your "some" I'm afraid are the uninformed minority. I don't know of anyone who views a defrocked priest as a priest, and none where reality rather than theory is involved.
There is great variety in how one views atonement in Orthodoxy.
If one thinks of it at all. Having been accomplished, the Orthodox are less worried about the mechanics of the Cross than actually putting its power into practice. In that context, "a great variety in how one views atonement" doesn't necessitate mutually ecclusive ideas. I've not seen it come up as an issue except in the US, with the great number of Protestant, especially Evangelical, converts coming in, some with scars and some with their ideas, coming to their new monastery with their old rule.
There's a fair amount of variety among those who think there is actual primatial power and authority in Orthodoxy and there are others who go in the opposite direct making Orthodox primates some very over-priced tie breakers...which also means that Orthodoxy is a democracy where majority rules...others say not so much
Given that Orthodoxy is consensus driven-i.e. the Consensus of the Fathers reflected in the Sense of the Faithful-such matters as "tie breakers" rarely if ever come up. And any primate who overstates his power and authority is quickly corrected.
There are others things, but these few things are not lightweight issues...
LOL. They are very inconcequential. But if that is all you got, I guess you have to run with it. They are no where near the importance of accepting or rejecting Lourdes and Fatima has in your ecclesiastical community, for example.
Chalcedon and the calendar (not so much in itself, but what it has come to represent) are the only really dividing issues, and yet you didn't mention them.
So I guess it's ok if you are in communion with one another to have these differences in faith...but if you are not in communion now, then everything has to be perfect prior to establishing communion...I guess.
Sort of like finding out your fiancee is addicted to drugs, and finding out your wife is addicted to drugs, and how that plays into your decision to stay with her or not. But not exactly, as the things you talk about is on the level of finding out she thinks soup is an essential part of dinner, and you can't stand soup.