No, they are very anti-Catholic. Which is why I referred to the movement that produced them as a revolution, introducing very alien concepts to Britain. The irony was that the Ango-Catholic movement was very ahistorical, and in many cases, it seems that the only true reason for remaining Protestant was either chauvinism (the Church of England is bewilderingly “racist” towards Catholic nationalities), or cowering to official discrimination. It was an attempt to marry the esteem of the royal sect with the majesty of authentic worship.
By racist, I mean that the Church of England’s attitude towards Catholic ethnic groups (Irish, French, Spanish, Polish, Italian, etc.) is that they are somehow an inferior race, even though they’re obviously not a different race. Contrast the scorn for the Spanish, which resulted in a nonsensical de-facto economic embargo of Argentina which was so total that it sent a once prosperous nation to destitute poverty, with the admiration for the military accomplishments of the Germans “who just happened to be Nazis.” However, I say this “seems” a cause for remaining Protestant, because I don’t know if this chauvinism was as bad then as it is now, although it would make sense that it was likely far worse.
By “ahistorical,” I mean the central pretense of Anglo-Catholicism is that England was, prior to Henry VIII, Catholic, but not truly Roman Catholic. Sort of like the Eastern Churches prior to the Great Schism, England saw the Bishop of Rome as an influential bishop, but not authoritative over their own. Henry VIII, therefore, initially was merely reasserting British independence from a Roman bishop who was overreaching.
The truth, however, is that the English Church was almost unique in its debt to Rome. The Irish Church, ironically, was more independent, established and organized almost entirely by religious orders outside of diocesan (hierarchical) control. Canterbury was established to create a strong Roman presence in the British isle, to ensure the orthdoxy and loyalty of the Irish Church.
When the Magna Carta was established, the Vatican was leery of the ability of the Church to maintain authority over a kingdom that was significantly pagan. The rights were yielded to the local lords only on the condition that England be recognized as the possession of the Vatican. To my knowledge, none of even the numerous “Holy Roman” Empires were in such position of fealty to the Vatican!
And THAT’s the germ of the Protestant Revolution in England: For centuries, the British royalty AND parlaiment sponsored research into creating justification for independence from Rome. Make no mistake: Tyndale’s work, for instance, was nakedly political, funded by partisan, polemicist politicians.
>> I mean the central pretense of Anglo-Catholicism is that England was, prior to Henry VIII, Catholic, but not truly Roman Catholic. <<
It was, incidentally, this very conceit that led to the term “Roman Catholic” being popularized in English-speaking socities. The Catholic Church is NOT even headquartered in Rome. It is on the opposite side of the Tiber from Rome, in exile, which makes the phrase “swimming the Tiber” very funny, indeed: it was original meant to suggest that “Rome” was Babylon, but since it means going to side with the Vatican, it makes the Anglican Church Babylon.