Also, the "valid Trinitarian baptism" spoken of is VALID in form only, but empty of grace-the use of economia in accepting Roman Catholics by chrismation is where the Church fills the void of grace in the so-called "valid trinitarian baptisms." As this concept is a bit hard to understand, I think that people take the easy path, and figure that "if they did not make me get baptized again, my original Roman Catholic baptism must have been valid." Sorry, no! By the way, I was raised Roman Catholic, and when I joined ROCOR in 1986, I was baptized (notice I did not say "rebatized"!!) I know a Roman Catholic man who was baptized by an Antiochian priest when he converted to Orthodoxy. SO not all the clergy of all the seemingly "feel goodZ" jurisdictions agree with the "feel good" way to go!
- The Church (albeit Western now) practice of NOT baptizing those who had received a Trinitarian baptism in a heretic sect is actually a practice that even Pope St. Stephen of Rome deemed apostolic as early as c. 255. (Most scholars today actually see Apostolic Canon No. 46 as being no older than about the 4th Century.) The practice of (re)baptism appears to really be an Eastern (not necessarily apostolic) practice.
- Most people, even among those Orthodox who should know better, judge only by external appearances and condemn others as demons simply because they're not visibly in the Orthodox Church. Can those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and manifest the fruit of the Holy Spirit's presence in their lives even possibly be demons merely because they've not known the fullness of the Orthodox spiritual life?