[quote:dq2edk7k]So, basically you agree that our baptism is just as valid as yours, but it’s not the preferred/recommended way to do it. True?[/quote:dq2edk7k]
Actually, quite the opposite. The Orthodox Church does not recognize what those outside of Her “do” in and of itself. While this is sometimes more or less strongly stated, the principle involved is uniform – one cannot be said to have received union with the “theandric body of Christ”, outside of what is known to be the “theandric body of Christ” (aka. Orthodox Church.)
In Orthodoxy, all of the Sacraments are something [u:dq2edk7k]the Church[/u:dq2edk7k] [i:dq2edk7k]does[/i:dq2edk7k] – they have no autonomy. Context is key.
However, if the form of baptism exists (and it is one the Bishop recognizes), it’s believed whatever is lacking in terms of ecclessial grace is communicated at the rite of reception (which can take various forms, but in the west usually involves Chrismation).
OTOH, what you’d call “licity” in Catholicism, Orthodoxy basically understands to be a condition of “validity”. This is why, as far as we’re concerned, if a Priest is defrocked, he [i:dq2edk7k]cannot[/i:dq2edk7k] act as a Priest – that means, if he tries to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, we regard it as the act of a layman. This is why in some respects (though the paradigm is in many respects different) the Orthodox Church’s relationship to Catholicism is understood the way you’d guys would look at Anglicanism.