Christ is Ascended!
I have been wondering about this ever since my Eastern Catholic days, the notion of classifying things as "Eastern" or "Western." It's incredibly common amongst the Eastern Catholic groups as they tend to define themselves in opposition to Rome and anything "western," but I've noticed it in Orthodoxy, too, and I think it's silly. Either something is Orthodox or it is not. Centuries ago we have determined the modern Roman church not to be Orthodox, but that does not mean that everything that might be geographically in the West is dripping with heterodoxy, hence why we have "Western" Orthodoxy, but could we drop these geographical prefixes and judge things as either Orthodox or Heterodox**? For example, the rosary geographically came from the west but it is also used by those in Orthodoxy as well. It's not (or shouldn't be) dismissed solely on the basis of being from the West, but on whether or not it was Orthodox.
I hope I am making sense, please forgive my lack of eloquence. It makes more sense in my head.
**(I'm not arguing against the so-called Western Rite Orthodox, I just prefer to call it Orthodox)
Well basically yes and no is the answer to your question (If I understand what you are asking correctly).
For instance the rosary & prayer rope usage has been traced pre-schism, so in those days there was unified communion between the ecumenical patriarchs so the geographical / jurisdictional issues were more "translucent" (if there is a good word for it).
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Greek church first adapted the prayer ropes out of the Rosary (arg I forget exactly) but I think rope was used instead of beads due to Greece being less wealthy. Something like that anyway.
) I forget the entire story of that.
So is the Roman Catholic (west) dripping in heterodoxy? "Dripping" may be a strong word. Ask any Roman Catholic who is their Lord and Savior and they'll respond (depending on language) with "Jesus Christ". Of course that is Orthodox. Who is the Mother of God "Mary" (Theotokos), that's Orthodox.
But there are vast issues of heterodoxy dating slightly pre-schism but absolutely during schism and post schism.
The western Filioque addition to the creed is "heterodox" to the Eastern Orthodox.
Papal Supremacy is "heterodox" to the Eastern Orthodox.
The "ecumenical councils" post Great Schism that the West has had would be "heterodox in principal" to the Eastern Orthodox.
Just remember that there has been nearly 1000 years since the schism for "heterodoxies" to formulate under the "heterodox" Papal supremacy.
Now the Roman Catholics find what they are doing as "Orthodox" (defined the right way), and see the Eastern Orthodox as sometimes a "sister church" or "schismatics". They believe the Eastern Orthodox practice many heterodox things such as NOT recognizing the Papal supremacy, but rather seeing the Pope as the 1st amongst equals.
I don't know if you meant exactly everything physically "geographically in the west" is heterodox, because that's not true. There are many Eastern Orthodox in Italy. (I know of only 1 individual personally in Italy, but I'm sure there are more).
I may be misunderstanding your question though. If you are speaking of Western Rite Orthodox, then I am not.
But you are right it is either "Orthodox" or "It's not Orthodox". The Roman Catholic church in many teachings is Orthodox, its the heterodox things that divides. (Pre schsim purgatory? I don't think so.)
Anyway, I hope this helps.