It isn't quite the same. I would argue that the WR is often poorly executed. It should, instead of being sort of a middle road, rather be a step for Roman Catholics to go back to pre-schism Roman practice and belief. This would exclude the Sacred Heart, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Original Sin etc...
Plus, keep in mind that much of the WRO falls under Antioch, whose own Metropolitan isn't all that "orthodox" in his practices or behavior (and its under him most WRO entered).
So even though the Western Orthodox Rite is Orthodox, it's not "really" Orthodox because the branch of Orthodoxy it's in isn't completely Orthodox.
It is Orthodox, but it because the congregations and sacred art typically hasnt matured to a point comparable to either the Byzantine rite or the traditional Latin rite RC type churches of the SSPX or FSSP (not to say all their sacred art is fully ideal, but musically, usually they are), it can give the impression of to being in a more limited primitive state.
Yes, I will agree with this particular comment, that it is often not executed as well as is ideal, but over time, as it grows larger, I believe it will be. Certain parishes are more ideal than others. For instance one can't walk into most western rite Orthodox churches and hear the original elaborate gregorian chant proper melodies from the 12th century being sung very often, whereas more of the latin masses within the RC do achieve that result with greater frequency. Often that is because it has fewer members in what are most often between a few months to few years old "missions". Amongst fewer people, there are fewer abilities or fewer people confident enough to learn the ancient melodies.
However, I sometimes wonder if I am the only one here who actually studies the historic lectionaries, graduals , latin rite liturgy and theological books from the 8th to 15th century.
The Assumption and Original Sin are clearly present and deeply entrenched part of the Latin Tradition from long before 1100.
They are also present in the byzantine tradition.
Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott stated,
"The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries....The first Church author to speak of the bodily assumption of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours."
The Sacred Heart originates as an outgrowth of the Five Holy Wounds.
"When consecrating an altar a number of Christian churches anoint it in five places, indicative of the Five Holy Wounds. Eastern Orthodox churches will sometimes have five domes on them, symbolizing the Five Holy Wounds, along with the alternate symbolism of Christ and the Four Evangelists."
"The revival of religious life and the zealous activity of St. Bernard and St. Francis in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, together with the enthusiasm of the Crusaders returning from the Holy Land, gave a rise to devotion to the Passion of Jesus Christ and particularly to practices in honour of the Sacred Wounds."
I've never understood the harm in devotion to the sacred heart which seems to show the God's philanthropic love toward mankind.
One can argue that the Latins in the later middle ages had more focus on the suffering humanity of Christ that was necessary, but that seems to be easy to resolve and balance today. Abandonment of the "Sacred Heart" is not necessary.
It is true that the it was not on any calendar until the 17th century.
Personally I am not deeply concerned whether it is officially on the calendar or in the propers or office books we use, but I would definitely be amazed if anything was theologically wrong with it.
The only harm I see is in the particular image chosen at a very late date to represent it.
That is easily solved by adopting earlier images for it, such as perhaps the "man of sorrows" or perhaps a crucifixion.
(post-schism RC) Saint Bonaventura of Bagnoregio (1221 circa – Lione, 15 luglio 1274)
in his treatise "On the Tree of Life" says:
"So that the Church might be formed from Christ as he slept, it was allowed by divine dispensation that one of the soldiers should pierce that sacred side with a spear, and that, in the tide of blood and water, the price of our salvation should be poured forth. This tide, flowing from the secret fountain of the Heart, was to provide the power for the Church's Sacraments for the conferring of the life of grace; and to all who would live in Christ that draught was to be a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Arise, therefore, O soul that lovest Christ, and be ye like to a nesting bird: be ye like to the sparrow who has found her an house, and watch without ceasing: be ye like to the swallow, and lay here the young of thy chaste love: place here thy mouth, that thou mayest draw water from the wells of the Saviour. For this is the river that went out of Eden and was parted into four heads, for streaming out of that Sacred Heart, it irrigates the whole world and makes it fertile."
It is probable that the mysticism of the Sacred Heart of Our Lord confuses those who are newly disposed to the concept. (Unless I am the one confused?). It appears to have enough roots and continuity with pre-1054 mysticism, so that I do not know why it would be in error.