My primary objection is that, with the exception of baptism, the Church does not permit ministers that are outside of the Church to validly/licitly administer her sacraments, period. Any more than She permits her ministers to administer her sacraments to those outside the Church.

I don't think we see eye-to-eye on what exactly the Church's "permission" means. You are correct that the Church does not "permit" non-Catholics to administer the sacraments (save for Baptism in danger of death, and possibly EO priests confession in danger of death). We can even say the Church forbids, condemns, proscribes, etc. all other usage of the sacraments concerning non-Catholics. But what the Church doesn't do is declare them invalid, so long as proper matter, form, and intention is present. And there is a reason for that

Otherwise the next thing you know the prots everywhere will be hearing/going to confession, ordaining priests, administering the Last Rites, consecrating hosts etc. all claiming validity because they use Catholic sacraments. They would defile the sacraments to no end, which of course is no way to preserve and protect them.

But this is exactly what the Orthodox have been doing for 1000 years. All illicit and mortally sinful. That cannot be pleasing to God. But the Church has never declared their administering of baptism, the Liturgy, chrismation, holy orders invalid. I would think if the Church had a way to prevent this from happening, besides forbidding, condemning, etc., She would have done so.

If you are going to say that the Church just "permits" the EO to have the Sacraments because She "trusts" them, you will also have to explain then why the Church "permits" Protestant baptisms to be valid..even those administered by heretics to heretics (adults). That is illicit, and both parties sin mortally and commit sacrilege. That is the definition of "defilement" of the sacraments. No grace is received through it! If the Church could simply "invalidate" these baptisms, why wouldn't She do so? Why not permit baptism in cases where it would be licit (e.g. danger of death, recipient professes the Faith and wishes to be baptized into the Church), but declare invalid those baptisms of adult heretics, where it would just be sacrilege?

We all know that the Church is the sole owner of the sacraments, she is the only one who makes the rules governing their use, rituals, etc., because they're hers and nobody else's. She is the only one who protects and has preserved the sacraments, which are absolutely necessary for salvation, since the time of the Apostles. So while I accept the EO are in schism, I also trust Holy Mother when she trusts the EO as she trusts her own ministers to not defile or abuse her sacraments.

Except the EO do abuse the sacraments every time they administer them. It has been 1000 years of illicit, mortally sinful sacraments from them. They administer them and receive them against the Churches law, in mortal sin. That is sacrilege.

The sacraments are the Church's because Our Lord divinely instituted them and entrusted them to his Mystical Body. You will agree what the Church cannot do is "mess" with the sacraments. The Church has no right to change the form and matter, because they were divinely instituted by Christ, not the Church.
So, those heretics/schismatics who administer baptism, holy orders, Holy Eucharist in the way Our Lord instituted, with the intention at least of doing what the Church does..the Church has no right to declare these invalid. To do so would be to change what Our Lord once declared. But She can, and does, declare them illicit, condemned, mortally sinful, etc.

So on that account, we can argue that the EO are still in some way, some how connected members, even though I personally do not believe they are members, I believe they are definitely outside the Church, but there's an argument that can be made that their schism did not sever them completely from the Church - because She gives them permission to use her sacraments. It's tough for me to swallow, but it is what it is and I accept it because Holy Mother says so - good enough for me.

The Church does not give permission to the EO to use the Sacraments. The EO do so illicitly. They "steal" the Sacraments of the Church. The Church actual condemns these sacraments, but that is all She can do because they are still valid. "Giving permission" but also declaring the sacraments illicit, mortally sinful, etc. cannot coexist

I'll respond to the rest later

I don't think we see eye-to-eye on what exactly the Church's "permission" means. You are correct that the Church does not "permit" non-Catholics to administer the sacraments (save for Baptism in danger of death, and possibly EO priests confession in danger of death). We can even say the Church forbids, condemns, proscribes, etc. all other usage of the sacraments concerning non-Catholics. But what the Church doesn't do is declare them invalid, so long as proper matter, form, and intention is present. And there is a reason for that

I understand all that, but to trust EO schismatics to even have valid sacraments (except baptism) is what I do not understand. I mean, we don't know that NO ordinations are valid, so for all the Church knows, the schismatic ordinations have long ago been revised into being invalid. If they did not tell the Church of the revision, how would she know?

If you are going to say that the Church just "permits" the EO to have the Sacraments because She "trusts" them, you will also have to explain then why the Church "permits" Protestant baptisms to be valid..even those administered by heretics to heretics (adults). That is illicit, and both parties sin mortally and commit sacrilege. That is the definition of "defilement" of the sacraments. No grace is received through it! If the Church could simply "invalidate" these baptisms, why wouldn't She do so? Why not permit baptism in cases where it would be licit (e.g. danger of death, recipient professes the Faith and wishes to be baptized into the Church), but declare invalid those baptisms of adult heretics, where it would just be sacrilege?

Baptism is different, always has been because validity of the sacrament has never depended upon the validity of the minister.
 

So, those heretics/schismatics who administer baptism, holy orders, Holy Eucharist in the way Our Lord instituted, with the intention at least of doing what the Church does..the Church has no right to declare these invalid. To do so would be to change what Our Lord once declared. But She can, and does, declare them illicit, condemned, mortally sinful, etc.

You're missing the point, which is, how does the Church know their ordinations are valid when any time in the last 100 years or whatever they could have revised them to the point of ordaining invalid / doubtful priests like the NO did. Or, similar to the NO, all or even half of the bishops "ad lib" half the ordination ceremony for the last 50-100 years, to the point they aren't priests at all.

I mean, we *are* talking about people that belong to a religion who purposely and deliberately left the Catholic Church, not a community of devout, saintly, Catholic monks who spend their lives praying in a monastery abiding by all things Catholic.

I know of a husband and wife who were trads since at least the 70s that just recently joined the Orthodox church, not sure which one tho, but they had to renounce their baptisms and be baptized again in that church in order to join them. So these schismatics are not our friends any more than prots are, and IMO, their sacraments, including their priestly ordinations, are at best extremely dubious - - again, that is only IMO. 

I understand all that, but to trust EO schismatics to even have valid sacraments (except baptism) is what I do not understand. I mean, we don't know that NO ordinations are valid, so for all the Church knows, the schismatic ordinations have long ago been revised into being invalid. If they did not tell the Church of the revision, how would she know?

The Orthodox churches have hierarchies with councils, decrees, etc. If they were going to change formulas for ordinations and/or consecrations, or declare that their belief in these Sacraments has changed, that is just something that would "get out there". And I see no reason for them to do that covertly, but even if they did it's not likely that it is something that would remain secret either. Regardless, they don't care what the Church thinks. 

Baptism is different, always has been because validity of the sacrament has never depended upon the validity of the minister.
  

I'm speaking primarily of "permission" here. If the Church just "permits" EO to "have" the sacraments..but has the power to declare them invalid at will..there is every reason for Her to do so in the case of an adult being validly baptised into a heretical sect. That is sacrilege. But She never has

You're missing the point, which is, how does the Church know their ordinations are valid when any time in the last 100 years or whatever they could have revised them to the point of ordaining invalid / doubtful priests like the NO did. Or, similar to the NO, all or even half of the bishops "ad lib" half the ordination ceremony for the last 50-100 years, to the point they aren't priests at al

We don't need to confine it to 100 years. The fact of the matter is that the Church has never declared EO orders invalid, and has treated them as valid because matter, form, and intention are all present. If the EO have changed their belief in the sacrament, or made changes to their formulas, in such a way that would invalidate them since the last Catholic Pope [sic] reigned, then one of the next Catholic popes [sic] will declare them invalid. But that evidently was not the case at least up until Pope Pius XII. 

I know of a husband and wife who were trads since at least the 70s that just recently joined the Orthodox church, not sure which one tho, but they had to renounce their baptisms and be baptized again in that church in order to join them. So these schismatics are not our friends any more than prots are, and IMO, their sacraments, including their priestly ordinations, are at best extremely dubious - - again, that is only IMO.

Yes, I believe there is a minority of more "conservative" Orthodox groups will re-baptize those who join them. I'm not sure of the particulars, but AFAIK that has never been the majority practice among the Orthodox. I do actually think the Orthodox are worse than the Protestants, precisely because their orders, confirmation (I think they call it chrismation), and liturgy, are valid, but "stolen" from the Church. I do not think, and I do not think you will find any theologians who do, that the Orthodox orders are dubious. The Church has always held them to be valid

To return to what you said about "permission":

So on that account, we can argue that the EO are still in some way, some how connected members, even though I personally do not believe they are members, I believe they are definitely outside the Church, but there's an argument that can be made that their schism did not sever them completely from the Church - because She gives them permission to use her sacraments. It's tough for me to swallow, but it is what it is and I accept it because Holy Mother says so - good enough for me.

The Church does not give permission to the EO to use the Sacraments. The EO do so illicitly. They "steal" the Sacraments of the Church. The Church actual condemns these sacraments, but that is all She can do because they are still valid. "Giving permission" but also declaring the sacraments illicit, mortally sinful, etc. cannot coexist

If you could understand this point I don't think there would be anything "tough to swallow". 

She makes it legal/licit/valid, in the process she presumes the schismatic EO priest is a valid priest, even though she has no control whatsoever over the ordination rituals.

If the priest is no longer a member due to schism like the EO, the Church has no jurisdiction over those priests, therefore cannot actually tell them to  provide the sacraments to a Catholic in an emergency, or to NOT provide the sacraments to a pagan, or how to administer them. She simply trusts the schismatic priest to not in any way defile the sacraments, knowing there is nothing to stop him from administering intentionally invalid sacraments if he wants - maybe due to being in schism the EO priest has a deep disdain for all Catholics. I mean, it just seems very odd (to me), for the Church to hand over her sacraments to schismatics. 

IOW, the Church trusts her sacraments to a schismatic non-member EO priest, but not for Prot ministers? 
 

A man who is ordained has sacramental power, if he uses it, whether he becomes agnostic, atheist, or even satanic.  When such a person absolves another of sin, the power still comes from the Church, even if that priest doesn't practice the Faith anymore.  It speaks to the power of grace, which is above and beyond the sinfulness of the person.

To return to what you said about "permission":

The Church does not give permission to the EO to use the Sacraments. The EO do so illicitly. They "steal" the Sacraments of the Church. The Church actual condemns these sacraments, but that is all She can do because they are still valid. "Giving permission" but also declaring the sacraments illicit, mortally sinful, etc. cannot coexist

If you could understand this point I don't think there would be anything "tough to swallow".

You're still not getting it.

You say the EO administer valid sacraments illicitly, this is wrong. And in danger of death, they do not steal the sacraments, the Church rewards schismatics the use of her sacraments just the same as she does for her own. 

As I posted previous, per this source from 1948, the Church says they administer the sacraments both validly and licitly in danger of death etc, it says: 
"...Whoever has been validly ordained to the priesthood, no matter how unbecomingly he may have subsequently fulfilled his sacred office, can validly and licitly grant absolution in danger of death, with the single exception of the restriction made in canon 884 regarding licitness. However, the Holy Office has given a particular response in this matter. A schismatic priest can absolve licitly in danger of death only if there is no Catholic priest present. The decision given in this response of the Holy Office is repeated by the authors."

I argue that because they can absolve both validly and licitly, though they've severed themselves, they are still in some way, some how connected members. I do not believe they are members, I believe they are definitely outside the Church, but there's an argument that can be made there for them somehow not being completely severed members, which means they are in some way still members of the Church. 

Now consider Trent's catechism quote here: "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted."

Although they belong to her only as deserters, it says that they still belong to her - in spite of their purposely (or not) trying to get out of it. 

You're still not getting it.

You say the EO administer valid sacraments illicitly, this is wrong. And in danger of death, they do not steal the sacraments, the Church rewards schismatics the use of her sacraments just the same as she does for her own.

As I posted previous, per this source from 1948, the Church says they administer the sacraments both validly and licitly in danger of death etc, it says:
"...Whoever has been validly ordained to the priesthood, no matter how unbecomingly he may have subsequently fulfilled his sacred office, can validly and licitly grant absolution in danger of death, with the single exception of the restriction made in canon 884 regarding licitness. However, the Holy Office has given a particular response in this matter. A schismatic priest can absolve licitly in danger of death only if there is no Catholic priest present. The decision given in this response of the Holy Office is repeated by the authors."

I argue that because they can absolve both validly and licitly, though they've severed themselves, they are still in some way, some how connected members. I do not believe they are members, I believe they are definitely outside the Church, but there's an argument that can be made there for them somehow not being completely severed members, which means they are in some way still members of the Church.

Now consider Trent's catechism quote here: "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted."

Although they belong to her only as deserters, it says that they still belong to her - in spite of their purposely (or not) trying to get out of it.

No, it's not wrong.

How can an EO priest validly and licitly absolve sins in danger of death?

It's because he is a priest, and for the benefit of the Catholic penitent.

How is he a priest?

Because he was ordained a priest

How was he ordained a priest?

An EO Bishop ordained him

That ordination was valid, but illicit. The Church gave no permission for that and actually forbids such ordinations.

The only reason why an EO could absolve sins in danger of death in the first place is because he was illicitly ordained, against the Church's wishes.

The principle is the same for why a Protestant, who you admit is not Catholic and not a member of the Church, can validly and licitly baptize someone wishing to be Catholic in danger of death. Generally, the Protestants baptisms are valid but illicit. In the case of someone wishing to be Catholic in danger of death, the baptism is valid and licit..this is allowed for the salvation of souls.

Are you going to change your opinion on Protestants too?

Because if you say this about EOs:

I argue that because they can absolve both validly and licitly, though they've severed themselves, they are still in some way, some how connected members

The same can be applied to Protestants, or even pagans/atheists!:

I argue that because they can absolve baptize both validly and licitly, though they've severed themselves, they are still in some way, some how connected members