The MAIN reason the church split in 1054 was over the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The other differences take a back seat.
Both churches accept the decisions of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. These are:
The Council of Nicea
The First Council of Constantinople
The First Council of Ephesus
The Council of Chalcedon
The Second Council of Constantinople
The Third Council of Constantinople and
The Second Council of Nicaea.
There is therefore doctrinal agreement on:
The divine and human natures of Jesus
Apostolic succession
The threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons
The broad structure of the visible church
The sinless life of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the honour due to her as Theotokos
Invocation of the saints
Acceptance of the seven sacraments
Confession to a priest
Use of images in worship
Solemn celebration of the Eucharist and affirmation of its sacrificial nature as identical with the sacrifice of Christ
The Eucharistic bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus Christ
Neither Church community subscribes to the Protestant teachings expressed in the five solae, especially regarding the teachings of salvation through faith alone (which these two communities understand as requiring no acts of love and charity) or of Sola Scriptura (which they understand as excluding doctrinal teachings passed down through the Church from the apostles in the form of Sacred Tradition).
I have more respect towards the Eastern Orthodox than I do for the Roman Catholic simply because the Orthodox split from Rome when they made it an issue of salvation that all must be in submission to the Pope of Rome. As the other differences (not back seat at all) have still not been corrected by Rome - a catch-22 situation if I ever saw one, there will not be a unification this side of heaven.
I also know that the Orthodox do NOT see the "solas" in the same way as you falsely described them. Specifically, sola fide, because the doctrine CAN be proved by Scripture and is NOT "requiring no acts of love and charity" but an understanding that a genuine faith WILL be evident in a changed heart that will be demonstrated by actions that please God. "Faith alone" concerns the doctrine of justification and is, and has been, understood as coming from the grace of God and not human merit. The Reformed formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone". At one time, even the Roman Catholic church held to this view but changed over time especially in reaction to the Reformation. It is a misunderstanding of sola fide to claim a man's works are not important to God. Good works are evidence of genuine faith but it is not the works which justify us.
The doctrine of sola Scriptura as "excluding doctrinal teachings passed down through the Church from the apostles in the form of Sacred Tradition" is also a misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Reformers. Instead, it is the truth that ONLY the Scriptures are divinely-inspired and serve as the rule of faith for Christians. The writings of early church fathers only confirms that this was their view of the sacred Scriptures and they consistently state that all that is presented to be of the faith must be backed up by God's word. Sola Scriptura is the belief in the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. From http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html:
Let this be a firm principle: No other word is to be held as the Word of God, and given place as such in the church, than what is contained first in the Law and the Prophets, than in the writings of the apostles; and the only authorized way of teaching in the church is by the prescription and standard of his Word. From this also we infer that the only thing granted to the apostles was that which the prophets had of old. They were to expound the ancient Scripture and to show that what is taught there has been fulfilled in Christ. Yet they were not to do this except from the Lord, that is, with Christ’s Spirit as precursor in a certain measure dictating the words...Yet this, as I have said, is the difference between the apostles and their successors: the former were sure and genuine scribes of the Holy Spirit, and their writings are therefore to be considered oracles of God; but the sole office of others is to teach what is provided and sealed in the Holy Scriptures. We therefore teach that faithful ministers are now not permitted to coin any new doctrine, but that they are simply to cleave to that doctrine to which God has subjected all men without exception.
Calvin also states emphatically that the doctrines preached by the Reformers reflected the teaching and practice of the fathers themselves, thereby claiming historical continuity with the early Church. Calvin repudiates the charge that the teaching of sola Scriptura is unhistorical. He writes:
Moreover, they unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side...With a frightful to do, they overwhelm us as despisers and adversaries of the fathers! But we do not despise them; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.
Thus, in embracing and teaching sola Scriptura, the Reformers claimed to be restoring to the Church a principle that would find overall patristic consent and, therefore, historical validation. But this is, after all, only a claim. The question is, Can the claim be validated from the writings of the fathers as Calvin affirms? In this section, we will examine what the Church fathers taught about Scripture and tradition. We will find that the Reformers were correct in claiming patristic support for the principle of sola Scriptura and did, in fact, restore the Church to the position which she had universally embraced and practiced for centuries. It is the Roman Catholic teaching on tradition and authority which is unbiblical and unhistorical.
I invite you to further read the article linked.