Before Vatican II, did eastern orthodox and protestants have to get re-baptized?

[Grace]

Does the Church not recognize the validity of Orthodox Confirmation? If so, that would surprise me, as it should call in to question the validity of the whole Baptismal Rite. That would be problematic for Catholics as the Eastern Rites use the same ritual..

I was raised Orthodox.  I married my H in the Novus Ordo Missae Nuptual Mass in 1990.  I was only asked one thing about the Faith in our pre- wedding interview with the priest:  Did I know what the bread and wine was...I answered "The body and blood of Jesus Christ."  And that was it.  I received Communion during the Nuptual Mass ... and ignorantly concluded that was an acceptable practice.  Therefore receiving sacreligiously for YEARS, until I learned that the Orthodox Church does not allow Catholics to receive Communion at their church and that as an Orthodox, I was only allowed to receive Communion at a Catholic Church only if there wasn't an Orthodox Church within a reasonable distance to me. 

I wanted to become Catholic after realizing there were in fact important differences and reasons why I wasn't to be receiving Communion.  A Sister of Mercy who was in charge of our parish at the time ...did tell me that being Confirmed wasn't "necessary" but she never said that it would be wrong or a sacrilege to be Confirmed in the Catholic faith.  She signed me up as a Catechumen and I  was re-confirmed in 2000.

[Raskolnikov]

To my understanding, when the Eastern Uniate churches were formed, no one was re-baptised. Ukrainian, Ruthenian (Rusyn, Carpatho-Rusyn), Romanian, Assyrian, and Lebanese (and so on, etc) bishops who were previously schismatics simply came under the juridistiction of Rome and entered fully into the Roman Communion. The laypeople of those bishops' jurisdictions were not impacted, and many of them had no idea of what was going on. They went about their lives as they did previously, albeit in a new canonical situation. I have never heard of any re-baptising occuring in these cases whatsoever.

[Revanneosl]

About the conditional baptisms: it's an issue of prudence while respecting the theology of valid baptisms done by heretics ... given the craziness going on in Prottie groups, you can no longer assume they are baptising the way the standard Methodist/Lutheran whatever Prottie groups were doing, now they are using rose petals instead of water, etc etc, and so perhaps conditional baptism (in private not as part of the public reception) should be brought back into common use.

Actually, the baptismal practice of the mainline protestant denominations has been growing more and more reliably orthodox over the course of the past 20 years or so, due to greater rigor in the teaching of liturgical studies in the seminaries.  If a priest has on his hands, for instance, someone who was baptized in a United Methodist congregation between 1970 and 1990, a conditional baptism might be called for if the original officiant couldn't be located.  But any dates before 1970 and after 1990 would be quite safe.

[newyorkcatholic]

About the conditional baptisms: it's an issue of prudence while respecting the theology of valid baptisms done by heretics ... given the craziness going on in Prottie groups, you can no longer assume they are baptising the way the standard Methodist/Lutheran whatever Prottie groups were doing, now they are using rose petals instead of water, etc etc, and so perhaps conditional baptism (in private not as part of the public reception) should be brought back into common use.

Actually, the baptismal practice of the mainline protestant denominations has been growing more and more reliably orthodox over the course of the past 20 years or so, due to greater rigor in the teaching of liturgical studies in the seminaries.  If a priest has on his hands, for instance, someone who was baptized in a United Methodist congregation between 1970 and 1990, a conditional baptism might be called for if the original officiant couldn't be located.  But any dates before 1970 and after 1990 would be quite safe.

I don't dispute your claim, but I'd also be very reluctant to trust the teaching of liturgical studies in protestant seminaries.  Essentially, since baptism is so supremely important, I think we should do conditional baptism unless the nature of the baptism of an individual can be ascertained by record or witness.