Rdr. Chrysostomos,
I just read the article you linked to.
For the most part, it was not a substantial treatment of the issue of heterodox baptism itself, but an apologia for the involvement of the EP and others in the ecumenical movement, and a very ill put denunciation of the alleged "schismatics" who vehemently object to this.
The following is a quote from the article...
The bottom line to the article by Metropolitan Khrapovitsky is that heterodox Baptisms have historically been recognized according to the Canons of the Church and may still be so recognized as determined by the Bishop.
This is at best, a very vague statement regarding the practice of economy in the reception of converts - at worst, I suspect it's intentionally vague.
In saying that Metropolitan Anthony understood that the Orthodox Church historically considered hetherodox baptisms "valid", the reader could easily be left with a view which is clearly outside of of not only the thought of Metropolitan Anthony, but of the Fathers who address this issue.
What could be considered "valid" and "recognized" in the cases of some hetherodox "baptisms" is the form used. In this sense, and this sense alone, the article would be correct.
However, this is not how the term "valid" is understood by most people - particularly since many still labour under a form of sacramental discourse which is basically lifted from the Roman Catholics, and which in many ways is alien to the Holy Tradition of the Church (but does, sadly, gain some prevelence in westernized Russia during the 19th century, where a lot of other strange things also appeared due to western european influences.) "Valid" in such a framework, would be understood as "true" - that is to say, the heterodox really do afford the remission of sins, and integration in any sense to the Body of Christ, with their "baptisms." This is not only incorrect, it is heretical - as it's direct, unavoidable consequence is to recognize formal, unmistakable hetherodoxy and schism as having a participation in the Body of Christ - that is to say, these groups are, in some wise, "real churches" (which is a branch-theorist notion one could just have easily lifted from the Anglicans as they could have the updated teaching of the Roman Catholics via Vatican II) or as the RC's would now put it, "real churches that are in imperfect communion with Rome" (or in this case, replace Rome with "EP" or "canonical heirarchs of the Orthodox Church", etc.)
This is, unfortunately, how economy in the reception of formerly heterodox converts is popularly misunderstood in our times - a misunderstanding which cannot but be said, to be fostered intentionally by the words and deeds of ecumenist heirarchs in what you and many others would (falsely) call "canonical Orthodoxy."
Such an understanding of "economy" is non-sensical, btw. - it makes it sound as if, when the Church decides to receive converts in this way, they are somehow recognizing a "real grace" that is already there. This makes totally incomprehensible then, practice in former times, regarding the same classes of converts, by a more strict means (for example, when the Greeks almost without exception, would put Latin converts through the full rites of initiation, including the waters of Baptism). This is Hopko-ism to the extreme, and besides being abusive towards logic and clear thinking, it does not correspond to the actual practice of the Church throughout the ages.
Sadly, this is the obscurant veil that much of ecumenism hides behind (along with protestations that they are "really trying to bring the heterodox into Orthodoxy"), and is usually marketed solely for the benefit of it's more "traditionally minded" members/victims, who are perhaps coming to some realize that what "Father did last Sunday when the Copts visited" or what they hear coming out of places like St.Vladimir's, or what they saw at some recent (ir)religious congress of varying "denominations" and religions, was "not quite right" and disturbed their conscience.
Seraphim