The fact is that Chareidiut is as much a departure from pre-emancipation traditional Judaism as is MO, reform Judaism or any other movement. Jacob Katz and others have well established the truth of that, and it is undeniable. Emancipation was THE game changer, and Judaism has yet to recover from it. Reform responded by jettisoning Halacha. Chareidiut responded by hallowing the Shulchan Aruch and by elevating Dinei Derabbanan and minhag tot he status of Torah law. MO, while essentially accepting the authority of the Shulchan Aruch as normative accomodates certain deviations from it in light of an equally important manifesto to participate in the surrounding culture. Those deviations might be grounded in minorty Halachik opinions not accepted by the Shulchan Aruch, or they might be based upon contemporary sevarah. But MO does, in theory at least, seek a Halachik basis for its actions. MO, also in many instances rejects the notion that minhag always has the status of din. It also rejects/resists the jettisoning of those minhagim which contradict the Shulchan Aruch, if such practices are hoary with age. Thus at my MO seder, I divide one piece of shmurah matzah among the entire table, even though the size of each piece is far smaller than the shiur of the Chazon Ish, or even that of Chatham Sofer. I do it because my father did it that way, as did his father etc. That age old family practice, a mesorah if you will, trumps any code based criticism anyone might levy. Conservative Judaism seeks to place Halachik observance within a historic continuum in which Halachik practice remains ever fluid and always subject to modification.
But all this is merely academic. Who is anyone to criticize the Halachik praxis of anyone else, when none of the current schools of though truly reflects the pre-emancipation system?