There's a local church I investigated going to which turned out to be Anglo-Catholic once I spoke to the Reverend on the phone. He was fairly cold and distant. He said he had never heard of the problem often brought up about transubstantiation being a philosophical attempt to explain a mystery, and seemed confused why someone would use that argument. He said the church has always believed in transubstantiation, that the people on this forum don't know what they're talking about, and that Anglo-Catholicism, which tolerates things like adoring the eucharist, is in fact traditional Anglicanism as they practice it at their parish. He said Rome gave the Reformers what they deserved at Trent, and that he didn't think Cranmer or Tyndale's martyrdom was a big deal. He just said awkwardly, "Eh, it doesn't matter." He also seemed to confirm what I was told about Anglo-Catholics on this forum, saying in one conversation that they follow all the articles, then later on saying it's just a spectrum and a product of it's time. He also seemed to dodge certain questions of mine regarding the sanctity of their practices while claiming the articles don't really mean what they say. When proscribing how often you need to come to communion, he was undecided and just settled with Rome's 'every Sunday' view, because he couldn't think of anything else, like he had never thought this out before. He said the same thing about venial/mortal sin, and that the apocrypha was scripture. He said the articles claiming Jerome rejected them are in error. Lastly, he said that if you are not in either the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Anglo-Catholic churches, you will go to hell. I never ended up visiting his church.