I can't think of any formal statements off the top of my head but I believe they still are a member of the WCC and party to the Balamand Agreement...so that would imply at least a somewhat favourable view of the Latins.
Most EO hierarchs shy away from the Balamand agreement claiming it is not worth the paper it is written upon. Bishop Antoun (Antiochian Archdiocese) told this writer, in outraged tones, that this Agreement "is of no effect," that it is "nothing," that it has in fact been given "no authority," and should be viewed as if it had never happened. This, in spite of the fact the Agreement was signed by official representatives or delegates of nine Orthodox Churches, including the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Moscow, and Romania!
For other criticisms:http://www.roca.org/OA/132/132m.htm
The document (Balamand) throws out a bunch of terms like "sister churches" without any attempt to clarify what that might mean as far as validity of sacraments, priesthoods, orders, etc. The MP, despite its ecumenical involvements, to my mind, has not even come close to taking any steps towards unity at the risk of undermining the faith. And I hope that the ROCOR, now in full communion with the MP, will continue to press the MP to really hold true to Orthodoxy without compromise. However, the GOA, has given ringing endorsement still to the BAlamand agreement. It is summed up here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_explained_GOA.aspx
I know that the Endimousa Synod of Constantinople in the 1920's formally declared Anglican sacraments to be valid, and I believe a similar statement was made in regard to Latin sacraments, though I'd have to look it up to be certain...but certainly the Oecumenical Throne has long regarded the Sacraments of the West to be valid. It's only a small minority within the more fringe elements of Orthodoxy who would object to this norm.
Yes, I'd like confirmation of this statement as well. And the 1920s were a radically different time. Even here in the U.S., St. Raphael (Haweeney), Bishop of Brooklyn, even permitted those Antiochian Christians who did not live close to an Orthodox parish to receive the mysteries at Episcopal parishes because he felt that they were but one small step from becoming Orthodox. But he, before he reposed, sent out a pastoral letter and directive that such Orthodox receiving the mysteries from any order outside of Orthodoxy was not permissible.Being Vice-President of the Eastern Orthodox side of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches Union and having issued on Episcopal solicitation such a permission to his people, Bishop Raphael set himself to observe closely the reaction following his permissory letter and to study more carefully the Episcopal Church and Anglican teaching in the hope that the Anglicans might really be capable of becoming actually Orthodox. But, the more closely he observed the general practice and the more deeply he studied the teaching and faith of the Episcopal Church, the more painfully shocked, disappointed, and disillusioned Bishop Raphael became. Furthermore, the very fact of his own position in the Anglican and Orthodox Union made the confusion and deception of Orthodox people the more certain and serious. The existence and cultivation of even friendship and mutual courtesy was pointed out as supporting the Episcopal claim to Orthodox sacramental recognition and intercommunion. Bishop Raphael found that his association with Episcopalians became the basis for a most insidious, injurious, and unwarranted propaganda in favor of the Episcopal Church among his parishes and faithful. Finally, after more than a year of constant and careful study and observation, Bishop Raphael felt that it was his duty to resign from the association of which he was Vice-President. In doing this he hoped that the end of his connection with the Union would end also the Episcopal interferences and uncalled-for intrusions in the affairs and religious harmony of his people. His letter of resignation from the Anglican and Orthodox Churches Union, published in the Russian Orthodox Messenger, February 18, 1912, stated his convictions in the following way:Very many of the bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church at the present time—and especially myself have observed that the Anglican Communion is associated with numerous Protestant bodies, many of whose doctrines and teachings, as well as practices, are condemned by the Holy Orthodox Church. I view union as only a pleasing dream. Indeed, it is impossible for the Holy Orthodox Church to receive—as She has a thousand times proclaimed, and as even the Papal See of Rome has declaimed to the Holy Orthodox Church' s credit—anyone into Her Fold or into union with Her who does not accept Her Faith in full without any qualifications—the Faith which She claims is most surely Apostolic. I cannot see how She can unite, or the latter expect in the near future to unite with Her while the Anglican Communion holds so many Protestant tenets and doctrines, and also is so closely associated with the non-Catholic religions about her.
You can read the some other portions of the letter and also some editorial comments here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx
GiC, I think it is more than a "fringe" of Orthodoxy that deems the mysteries of non-Orthodox to be valid. If they were, then "union" would be a stark possibility. But that is not the case.