I've read that some OCA parishes and some conservative Greek, Serbian and Russian bishops (not Old Calendarists, but canonical bishops) also insist on baptism for Catholics.
I've heard that sometimes as well, once very recently.
Based on doctrine all the Orthodox reserve the right to receive somebody through baptism but the 'big three' Orthodox denominations in America, the Greeks, the OCA and the Antiochians, have agreed not to, instead recognising the baptisms of other Christians not in themselves - Orthodoxy has no teaching either way on that, only that its sacraments have grace - but provisionally/economically; 'filling in the grace', completing a 'valid form' (to use a Westernism) through joining the church.
Certainly a tradition that has had 'air baptism'
in extremis can allow some economy for pouring in the name of the Trinity by non-Orthodox!
Of course all that only applies to trinitarian baptisms. Mormons aren't Christians - they're polytheists among other problems - so their baptisms aren't recognised by any Christian church.
I don't like it when Orthodox baptise Christians baptised in other churches but understand their logic. (Like I imagine many here I think the 17th-century Russian rules make sense; they mirror Rome's.)
If priests in those churches are disobeying their bishops by so doing that's not good.
The way it's supposed to work in Orthodoxy is even if a bishop or priest receives by baptism, if under another Orthodox bishop somebody was received another way the sacraments of initiation are not repeated, full stop. 'If you'd come to me I'd have baptised you but now that you're in, you're Orthodox.'
There was a case in the OCA of a convert priest being rebaptised on Athos (per the stories related here... AFAIK Athos does not claim a charism of infallibility let alone impeccability but they do sound like it sometimes) and in turn rebaptised his wife, which of course was a sacrilege, second-guessing his church and really saying all the sacraments he had administered in his years before as a priest were graceless because if he wasn't baptised he wasn't really a priest! Which of course is nonsense: years before an Orthodox bishop brought him into the church, end of discussion. So he was removed from the priesthood by his bishop back home.
Conversely, while baptism of Orthodox "converts" to Catholicism are recorded in Croatia in the 1940's, is it also true that this practice was also done in Poland until quite recently?
If it was, at best it was out of ignorance of the real teaching of the Roman Church on the matter and at worst out of spite and ethnic hatred!
Like if St Peter the Aleut was real - I really don't think Spanish priests were that stupid or ignorant not to recognise a Russian baptism, and the only evidence of his existence is St Herman of Alaska believed he was real - according to the
magisterium he was right and his Spanish murderers wrong. The Russian Catholic Church commemorates him; born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt that way.
(Yesterday the Old Calendar churches remembered St Herman and the Orthodox martyrs in America.)
I'd also like to confirm if the rule of baptizing/chrismating Catholics applies only to Latin Catholics, but Greek Catholics only need to be received by repentance/profession of faith.
I've read that as well. As has been said before, methods of reception, the degrees of economy allowed, have varied a lot historically, based on the relations between the churches/countries at the time. (There was the case of Fr Lev Gillet, received by concelebration with an Orthodox bishop, Metropolitan Evlogy in Paris in the 1920s. A priest once told me of somebody being sung in with a Многая лета/'Many years'.) Certainly the people in the Toth and Chornock splits weren't rebaptised, rechrismated nor reordained; here economy seemed to work like with nationalist or true-believer (such as Old Believer) splits. These people were still regarded as somehow 'in the family' with the same forms for the sacraments. (Like today after centuries of separation from Orthodoxy the Russian Church at least functionally recognises the orders of the Old Believers who have them.)
There was the case in the 1800s of Overbeck, a Roman priest who left and married; the Russians wouldn't let him serve as a priest because they recognised his RC orders and an Orthodox priest wouldn't be allowed to do that.
MrsMW, right on both counts. German Princess Ella/St Elizabeth was born Lutheran and the Russian Church at the time and I imagine now wouldn't have baptised somebody baptised in that church. Also true of her relative the empress (czarina), Alexandra, also a canonised Orthodox saint.
There are churches on the Old Calendar and then there are Old Calendarists, just like there are Roman Catholics who are traditional, even exclusively going to the Tridentine Mass, and then there are traditionalists like the Society of St Pius X (Lefebvrists) and even the sedevacantists ('there has been no valid Pope since 1958'). That said, Fr David is right to make clear that Orthodox who use the Julian calendar are indeed canonical! (The OCA's conservative Diocese of Alaska, native people such as American Indians - Tlingits for example - and Russian-Aleut creoles, which is still called the
Russian Orthodox Diocese of Alaska, likewise is on the Old Calendar.)
