This.
"As an Anglican, and an Anglo-Catholic at that, I don’t easily fit into any of the usual boxes, and that can be difficult for some people. I don’t subscribe to papal infallibility, but I do pray the rosary daily; I love the Book of Common Prayer, but I go to Mass regularly. I am not confused, my theology has been perfectly articulated by many scholars before me, from William Laud to Edward Pusey, King Charles I to Vernon Staley. I see the Anglican Church as the English expression of the Catholic faith and the Reformation as an unfortunate necessity - recovering the Gospel, returning to the Church Fathers, restoring the faith and ridding the Church of corruption and superstition. All very noble ideas in principle, and as Mark Twain is accredited as saying, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform, pause or reflect.” Lord knows the Church needed reform. Papal corruption (armies, empires/dominions, illegitimate families, greed) and dodgy practices (the ‘selling’ of indulgences) needed addressing. But in the process of reforming, the more puritanical Protestants took to being anti-Catholic, in opposition to the majority who saw the reformation as pro-Catholic, if anything. That problem has never been resolved. Whilst many Puritans were driven out of the Church, wars raged, attempted coups were fought off, and tribal lines were drawn in the sand. I am, of course, condensing a vast period of history, but the point I am trying to make is that, as Christians, we were never intended to be divided. Schism is not good, separation is not to be desired, and we should pray and work toward a united Church. The Council of Vatican II reported that Catholics today should not hold Protestants of today to blame for the sin involved in the separation, and I think that works both ways. We should focus on the things that unite us, such as our faith in Christ, over the things that divide us, such as our worship styles.
It is also worth mentioning I will not even entertain the tired revisionist argument that the Church split entirely because King Henry VIII wanted to re-marry. That dismisses the call for reformation from the continent, ignores the Catholicity of Henry VIII, and forgets we were still a Catholic nation until Elizabeth I was excommunicated by Pope Pius V. The English people maintained their Catholic faith and chose to submit to the King over a foreign Pope. They didn’t instantly become ‘Anglicans’ in the sense that we use the word today. The Church of England was historically Catholic (I shall write a separate piece on that), and followers were described as Anglicans as far back as 1215, centuries before the Reformation. Anglicanism is a 19th-century innovation - encompassing the ‘via media’ approach of the Reformation, being broad enough to allow for nuanced disagreements in doctrine (i.e. real presence vs transubstantiation, or sola scriptura vs prima scriptura) and worship (evangelical, charismatic, catholic). For better or for worse."