I am sorry, I conflated this with the concept of sacraments having or lacking grace.
But isn't there also a concept, amongst the schismatics, of being more able to say where grace is, than to say where it is not, and a fuzzier notion of sacramental validity?
For the Orthodox, everything seems to hinge on whether one is "in the Church" (i.e., in Orthodoxy) or not, and that sacraments outside of Orthodoxy are per se invalid (but the again, there's that "where grace is versus where grace is not" thing), but may be convalidated, after a fashion, once the (in their eyes) schismatic Christian is received into Orthodoxy? I have in mind a Catholic priest (God forbid) becoming Orthodox, something about his being chrismated and (I think) vested, making his priestly orders valid without the orders themselves having to be conferred (either absolutely or conditionally)?
Yes, for the Orthodox AND for Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine tradition, any mysteries (sacraments) celebrated outside the Church are without grace because the ecclesial body itself lacks grace since that body itself is separatrd from the Church.
How this can be corrected is not uniform amongst the Byzantine churches. Some churches require a readministration of all sacraments of initiation. Other churches practice merely a rechrismation (and vesting if the deficient person was major cleric in their previous "lacking-grace" church). Still other churches simply require a profession of faith. Eastern Catholics, perpetually abused by Latins as they have been, have been forced to follow the practice of the Lstin Church for the past 125 years, especially since the promulgation of the Eastern Code of Canon Law in the 1990s, even if this directly contradicts their own theology and historic custom.