Yes, Orthodox chrismation is unquestionably valid, so too Eastern Catholic chrismation.
Faculties are required in the Latin Church sui juris for a priest to confirm validly. However, this is not the case in the various Eastern Churches sui juris. The sacrament developed differently in the West and East. In the West, confirmation is tied to the direct action of the bishop in person. In the East, the sacrament is tied to the episcopally-consecrated oil used for chrismation. The episcopal action is mediated through the priest.
It can be a challenge for many Latin Catholics to grasp that the "una Ecclesia" we confess in the creed is, in fact, 24 separate Churches with their own identities and histories. These Churches, of which the Latin Church is overwhelmingly the largest, are joined through communion of faith while remaining distinct, e.g., the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, the Coptic Catholic Church, the Syro-Malabar Cstholuc Church, etc. Latin Catholics tend to think of the "una Ecclesia" as the Latin Church alone with Eastern Catholics as oddities whose identity is simply that of a different liturgical Rite, not a different, yet fully-Catholic Church.
I'm well aware of this historical fact, but as things have turned out with the Orthodox schism, the Eastern churches in union with Rome tend to be very small, "rump" churches, and many (if not most) of them are "uniate" churches created as smaller analogues of their corresponding schismatic Orthodox churches. The Maronites are a separate case, and the Melkites seem to view themselves as a kind of
via media between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, almost (and I'm sure I'm going to butcher this) like "a part of the Orthodox Church in union with Rome". Indeed, you then had the Antiochian Orthodox Church which was a schism from the Melkites.
Topic: Validity of Ortho confirmations? (Read 1882 times)