[ArrogantBustard]

Our Metropolitan decided that lacking any concrete evidence that she had been baptized, we needed to baptize her and if we were wrong, he was quite sure God "will understand".

This, in case it isn't obvious, is clearly the sort of situation in which the Catholic Church would Baptise conditionally. Again, we're not trying to "fool God", much less insult Him by implying that He doesn't know what's what. We're reminding ourselves of the limitations of our own knowledge and reminding ourselves and any witnesses that the Sacrament of Baptism is a one-time-only Sacrament, that it leaves an indelible mark on the soul.

[Calvin Coollidge]

I don't think anyone in Orthodoxy is against baptism subconditionale. It's just not a commonly used form for us. That said I have heard of it's being used on occasion. We just don't see it as essential. The one situation where it is done under canonical mandate is in cases where a layperson baptizes someone (usually an infant in danger of death). In that situation there are church canons which prescribe that the person (assuming they lived) should be re baptized properly by a priest using the conditional formula as an insurance.

[Calvin Coollidge]

Another issue is that the RCC routinely accepts non-Catholic baptisms as valid, even in cases where there was absolutely no sacramental intent. This may not be what is supposed to happen but it is none the less common. Most of your priests are only concerned with water and the Trinitarian Formula. My experience is that the use of conditional baptism (common before Vatican II) has become somewhat rare today.