**Coptic **= Church founded by the apostle Mark. Coptics separated from Orthodoxy at one of the Ecumenical Councils because they believe in a single Nature a mix of human and divine of Jesus while the rest of the Orthodox Churches and our Catholic Church believe in a two Natures of Jesus, one human and one divine. Coptics separated themselves from Orthodoxy on that issue, but have maintained an Apostolic Succession.
One of my best friends is Coptic, and I must correct you on this issue, which is entirely semantic. I’ve explained to her that we believe that Christ was one person with two natures, with a human and divine will distinct but absolutely harmonious in one person, psyche, body, soul. She said that this is absolutely what the Copts believe, though they word it differently.
On our Catholic Church’s side, I would say that once the Pope permitted reception of Communion in the hand, don’t we have to accept it as equally correct as on the tongue? And isn’t true that the every earliest Mass Liturgy ever used, the one the apostle James of Jerusalem made, also gave Communion in the hand?
We have to accept the Pope’s teaching on faith and morals. We are not obliged to accept pastoral decisions (allowing communion on the hand) or implied teaching. I realize that the early church used communion on the hand - but JPII himself teaches in his encyclical on the Eucharist that understanding and awareness of just what the Eucharist is, and all that it implies, developed over time - almost certainly the apostles didn’t quite get it at the last supper, though St Paul has the essentials, it took hundreds of years for St Thomas to spell out transubstantiation and for the Church to start things like Eucharistic Adoration. IMO communion in the hand was suppressed naturally in time because the growing awareness of the church on this issue made it obvious that the practice was not in keeping with our beliefs - as we pray (in the liturgy, in our actions and words) so we believe.
If you join an Eastern Catholic Church would it be a problem for you to be in full union with the Catholic Church that believes and practices what you mentioned that you don’t like. Communion in the hand, NO and women in the sanctuary?
Yes. I’d prefer to go to a Latin Mass with none of those things than to an Eastern Mass with them.
Part of the equation with the NO is simple novelty - many trads, eastern and western, would argue that because it is unprecedented to consciously reconstruct a liturgy, copying and pasting and fabricating as one sees fit, it is unacceptable to do so. That is not how liturgy develops. Ergo, we oughtn’t accept it.
Regarding your musings on unity - I completely disagree with your position on Administration, as you call it. The visible Administration is a big part of Catholic unity - the point is that the Roman Bishop (eg the Pope) promulgated Eastern canon law, so Easterners have to accept it. If he were to promulgate one mega-canon law that applied to everybody, they would also have to accept it. The bishops and faithful of the east have to accept all of the teachings of the Pope on matters of faith and morals. As far as Creed goes, you’ve missed the mark - what give us doctrinal unity is the Councils, not the Creed as such. All Catholics, clergy and laity, must accept the canons of all 21 of the ecumenical councils. Unity.
The Latin Rite is immensely rich BirdofDawn as I’m sure you will recognize. As for the NO being dry for you, remember the beauty of God is hidden in the ordinary. Have you ever stared at a flower and thank God for it’s beauty? Now, have you ever look at barren branched and did the same thing? If you can thank God for the beauty of that branch, you will see God’s beauty everywhere. And surely in the NO.
Sorry, but no. lol. I actually totally understand where you are coming from, though. When I was a big NO fan, going daily, and my husband (friend, at the time) started getting into the Latin Mass, discussing problems with the NO with me, etc., I just hated hearing what he had to say. It sounded downright disrespectful. I said to him that I felt the sparseness of the NO was more Franciscan, which is what I am hearing from you. That was absolutely my perspective. My husband pointed out, “But St. Francis lived and prayed the Latin Mass!”. That gave me pause. Ultimately, I look back on my perspective then and realize that I had converted based largely on reading, with lots of hagiography, been shocked by some of the NO experience, and then to harmonize it all, I spiritualized my interpretation - rather than “ugly”, I called it “simple”. But it’s much more than the lack of stuff in the NO that I find problematic - though this is a huge problem; the very brevity makes it nearly impossible to allow oneself to be truly drawn up into the experience and prepared for holy communion. I also find it terribly mundane. The vernacular, if used, should always be used in a setting of solemn chant, to create a layer of the language that still takes you out from the day-to-day. I could go on and on. I could recommend books about the problems with the NO if you’d like, but I won’t bother unless you’re into it.
The daily Mass in the Ordinary Form broadcast on EWTN and Catholic radio uses Latin for many parts of the Mass. When our priest celebrates the OF with a local community of contemplative Carmelite nuns he recently indicated he’s using Latin. I often go to Mass at the local Dominican Priory and they use English, or Spanish, or Latin, depending on the celebrant that day.