To be honest, my research only goes so far as Eastern Orthodoxy. OO & Roman Catholicism are mere curiosities to me because they don't impact my worship. OO is most like ours, even sharing St. Basil's Liturgy with us, but other than that, I have no concern for learning their practices unless they become one with our Church.
If you studied liturgy, you wouldn't say that. Eastern Orthodox liturgy didn't drop out of the sky as the ascending Christ's last gift before clouds took him out of our sight. It didn't develop in a vacuum. You don't have to care about the practices of those outside your Church as if caring legitimised them as equal to your own, but you should care because they provide clues and insight into how your own liturgy took form and became what you have received.
Study liturgy. Don't simply focus on the intricacies of various types of Typikon as if that's enough. You won't understand the latter without the former.
Also, as for wearing "leather" shoes. As I pointed out, I seriously doubt you will find someone in this day and age, especially Priests, at least in the US, wearing real, pure leather shoes. They are just too expensive. You also won't get "dress" shoes today without them being some kind of leather, unless you want to pay a lot for some fancy shoe that has no leather.
Traditional ecclesiastical practice prohibits animal products from being used at the altar. Leather is one of those products.
You can talk about how people may use imitation leather nowadays, but exactly how far back does that go? Back in the day, different Churches came up with different solutions for this problem, and outside of EO tradition, they almost always involved some form of "vegetable" material being used for shoes/slippers. Most of us continue that practice.
Or you can talk about how it's impossible to buy appropriate shoes without any leather in them, and so it's pointless to insist on this tradition (as if it is impossible to take off your shoes). You can try to justify it all you want, but that only goes to show that, for you, it's an inconvenient truth: your Church routinely disregards a universally acknowledged liturgical practice when it comes to shoes, even if it upholds that practice when it comes to such things as leather-bound Gospels.
Altar boy isn't a fuction that isn't allowed in our church. It's a function that is permitted based on the assumption that the boys will go on to become readers, subdeacons, deacons, priests and maybe even bishops.
Maybe you should spend less time judging the Eastern Orthodox and our practices, and focus on your own tradition.
LOL. I'm not judging anything other than your willful ignorance, but I hope saying that gave you a much needed ego boost.
"Altar boys" are allowed, you claim, based on the assumption that they will go on at least to the minor orders. Very well, but how many actually go on to this? It's by no means guaranteed that even half will do so, is it? Why they can't be set aside as members of these minor orders from the very start of their service? In my Church, our minor orders are chanter, reader, and subdeacon. We don't have "candle-bearer", because tending to the lamps, candles, and doors of the church and altar is the responsibility of the subdiaconate (our subdeacon is candle-bearer, porter, and sacristan all in one, and is technically the first rank that actually gets to serve within the altar as opposed to the kliros). But your tradition does have "candle-bearer", in addition to chanter, reader, and subdeacon. If all EO altar boys are ordained candle-bearers, then I have no issue with it, and I think the argument changes significantly.
But as it is currently AFAIK, "altar boys" are just boys who ask or are asked to put on a robe and perform functions that are traditionally reserved for the ordained. Why? If there's a shortage of ordained ministers, the solution is not to allow kids to play dress-up. Find a responsible way, within the limits of ecclesiastical tradition, to ensure having sufficient ministers. That may involve training half the qualified men in your church, or it may involve adjusting certain standards (e.g., marriage requirements for subdeacons) to increase economically the pool of the qualified, but how on earth do you justify absolutely unordained "altar boys" but not "altar girls" without in some way implying that male genitals are necessary in order to stand behind the iconostasis?
Just admit that there is a contradiction and it is not easily resolved because we have allowed a certain practice to attain "antiquity" based on weak or faulty logic, when all we had to do was follow the canonical traditions we had received and which we still practice. But the attempt to justify altar boys as "tradition" while condemning altar girls as part and parcel of the gay agenda or Anglicanesque progressivism is ridiculous and literally nonsensical, hardly worthy of a Church that claims to be God's one and only.