But I think you have it backwards. I will appeal to Kolokotronis and invoke the concept the presumption of innocence. Before the schism Latins and Greeks were in one church, recognizing each other's bishops. With the schism the Greeks declared that the Latins were heretical and no longer of the one Church. But by the very canons that the Orthodox invoke denying that the pope has any jurisdiction over the eastern bishops, the bishops in the East have no jurisdiction over those of the West. If then any of the bishops in the East suspected a bishop in the West of heresy, the proper recourse (according to Orthodox ecclesialogy) would be to accuse him before his own synod. If they suspected that the entire synod was heretical then they should have taken the charge before a synod of the entire Church, an ecumenical council. Failing that, the Greeks must admit that the Latin bishops are the true and proper bishops over the Western church. As such, they, and they alone, have the jurisdiction and right to pass judgment on the orthodoxy of their teaching and the validity of their sacraments.
I will also point out that there is a difference between mere error and heresy. Heresy is the obstinate denial of some truth of the faith. If error alone were to exclude one from the Church, I doubt that any of us could claim membership. Since (from an Orthodox point of view) the entire Church has not ruled on the disputes between the Latins and the Greeks, Catholics cannot be charged with heresy; at best only with error. Thus, again from an Orthodox point of view, this cannot be characterized as a dispute between Catholics and the one Church but as one between brother bishops within the one Church.
Very nicely reasoned.