I’ve never actually heard this distinction in Orthodoxy, I’ve never heard of someone saying the novus ordo is invalid but the traditional rites are valid

the debate as far as I understand it is if you can actually have sacraments or sacramental grace outside the Church to begin with.  in my experience, those who say no usually say no, just across-the-board. 

and to preempt the possible question of whether this belief is donatism, I don’t think so because from what I understand donatism is denying that unworthy ministers IN the church have valid sacraments.  The sacraments of schismatics (which from the EO perspective would be the papacy in general whether novus ordo, sede, or whatever in between grade), would be a separate question


tbh I don’t have a huge dog in the fight myself; im more than willing to admit I just don’t know; but I’ve seen people with very strong opinions on both sides

Aquinas distinguishes between "the character" of certain Sacraments (baptism, confirmation, holy orders) and "the grace" of those Sacraments. Schismatics, apostates and heretics retain "the character" and can pass on "the character" to others using the proper Rites. But those "outside the Church" will not benefit from the "the grace" conferred with "the character" of those Sacraments. However, if they later repent, the grace will revive in them because they already have the indelible "character."

Similarly, since sacramental grace of the Eucharist will not flow to those in a state of mortal sin, those who have knowingly left the True Church (heretics, apostates, schismatics properly understood) will also not receive the grace from the Eucharist, even though the confection of the Eucharist may be valid, assuming proper form, matter, intention and minister.

On a historical, theological, and aesthetic level it is entirely true the Orthodox shouldn't be likened to the aforementioned sects. I think it's precisely because the RCC and Orthodox are far more aligned than these others that
makes their disagreements more difficult to overcome. The traditions are much more integrated into their respective cultures, and matters like the filioque are too obtuse to make much of a fuss about for the average person.

It would be far more easy to show an openminded evangelical the error of his way.
However if you're outside the church it doesn't matter if you're off by an inch or a million miles.
That's why the novus ordo has been so diabolical in its design and implementation. It's another religion superimposed upon another, seemingly identical in structure but not its substance.

Unlike other sects, the Orthodox retain certain marks of the True Church.

They retain uninterrupted Apostolic Succession, and all seven Sacraments are valid. But their doctrine puts them at least in formal schism and material heresy. And, unless the recipients of the Sacraments are invincibly ignorant of the nature of their schism, Sacramental grace will not flow to those recipients from the valid Sacraments conferred in their Churches.

They lack the mark of "unity" because they reject submission to the Holy See (a sin against charity and the Faith). They lack the mark of "catholicity" because they subscribe to a kind of religious ethnocentrism (a Judaic characteristic).