When one, especially a "newbie", encounters the argument he sees between Classical Anglicans TM and Anglo-Catholics, it's important to understand how the "competing narratives", one reflecting a Protestant historiography and the other Catholic, come into play.  Revisionism is always titillating, heady stuff, because it is new and bold, but it often doesn't win the day, especially when it's driven, consciously or unconsciously, by a partisan or ideological reaction.  That's because "facts are stubborn things", to quote John Adams.  Surely presuppositions and perspective matter in the assessment of the evidence, but at the end of the day, the evidence is not malleable.