You wrote:
“Well from the Copts perspective, the Latins are the heretics.”
Copts have no authority to judge the Church as heretical. The very idea is absurd.
“The Latin church may be bigger, but the Copts are older, and there are some things about the Eastern I like much better than the Western church, from the Protestant perspective.”
The Coptic Church is not older - it dates back to the 5th or 6th century at most. What a Protestant likes or dislikes is inconsequential in regard to truth. Truth is truth. It has nothing to do with being likable or dislikable.
The Alexandrian church from which the Copts evolved was one of the earliest founded, not long after Christ’s ascension. Your ‘history’ is laughable as the ‘heretical’ split you talked about happened in 451, so how could they have started in the 5th and 6th centuries when they were already attending the councils centuries before that.
And the Latins have no authority to judge anyone as heretical either. This has been the problem in Christianity for centuries once the Muslims finished conquering the Christian lands of Africa and the Middle East, is that the Roman church has always claimed supremacy simply because they were now the largest church.
Nobody bought it, and nobody ever will. All it serves is to stir up dissension among the Body, but the Latins won’t leave it alone.