Well, to look at history:
In the early Church there was a debate over whether heretics \\"baptized\\" in a heretical or schismatic body should be baptized into the Church, or if the laying on of hands. In North Africa, a great number of bishops led by St. Cyrprian met in council and decided that the laying on of hands was not sufficient, and that yes, those coming to the Church must be baptized, even if they received \\"baptism\\" in a heretical body. The argument basically went along the lines of, how can a person outside the Church and without the grace of the Holy Spirit confer the gift of the Holy Spirit? The Church and the Holy Spirit go hand in hand, so it is contradictory to say that a person receives the Holy Spirit and yet remains outside the Church.
At the same time, Pope Stephen of Rome argued against St. Cyprian on this matter, and suggested that those persons who come from heretical or schismatic churches need not receive \\"re-baptism.\\"
So, even early in the Church, there were intense disagreements on the matter. Some groups (e.g. the Donatists) broke communion with the Church over the issue. Blessed Augustine of Hippo fought against their strict line on re-baptism.
This said, chrismation is not exactly the same as the laying on of hands. The chrism used in chrismation is blessed by the bishop before given to the priest, and the chrism itself contains chrism from the previous year (which contains chrism from the year before, and before, etc. all the way back to the Apostles, according to tradition). I received a Trinitarian baptism in the Latin Church (pouring, not immersion). My Orthodox priest knew this, and decided that all I needed was chrismation, which I received on Theophany Sunday.
Be the first person to like this.