I'm intrigued by this thread.
Have been reading "Anglo-Catholic in religion", which is partly about the resurgence of Anglo-Catholicism in England in the first half of the twentieth-century.
They did see themselves as part of the Catholic Church, with the Pope as the authority. They went as far as thinking of the RC Church in England as schismatics from the RC Church-in-the-world. They also rather liked their sacramental light. Taking it out for a procession, and so on. And they believed in the whole apostolic succession thing, and spent a long time trying to get Rome to recognise it.
Transubstantiation, though important in forming a core around which identity-and-difference might be maintained was, arguably, less important than other issues in driving the the rise of Anglo-Catholicism in the period, and in being the focus/providing the affective core that made people identify as Anglo-Catholic.
But who were "they"? They were a splinter group, with a very questionable level of influence/authority, and, at times, teetered on the edge of what, really, could be called "Anglican".
I'm gathering from this discussion that Anglo-Catholicism is different now?? Very small??
The strangest thing is that a lot of what the Anglo-Catholics struggled to get adopted into mainstream Anglican worship was dropped in Vatican II.
I suppose I think that, even though, technically, transubstantiation is a significant marker of difference between the two Churches, experientially, the difference may well lie elsewhere.
I suspect the path across might not be that far at all. After all, lots have walked that way before.
Feel a bit sorry for all those Roman Catholics who would like their Church to modernise, however.
I do wonder how all these Churches are going to deal with ongoing modernity, however. And I'm waiting for the schism in the Anglican communion.