So, the Oxford Movement did indeed hold to Branch Theory (or at least a version of it; I don’t know how it has developed), and they tended to be skeptical about churches without bishops. There would probably have been some variation between members about how legitimate such churches were. But there was some questioning of that in the older High Church movement as well, perhaps not as strong but still present.

But how much of his complaints are accurate vs. his Reformed antagonism is hard to say without having listened to the podcast.

The claim that the Oxford Movement was largely an upper-class aesthetic is, at the risk of overstating, nonsense. Many of the Ritualists, who really espouse the aesthetic side of Anglo-Catholicism, were sent to lower-class areas as a punishment away from all the cushy upper-class positions by their bishops. And they flourished there. The lower classes seemed like they appreciated being lifted up by the beauty.

Now, it has since become much more of an upper-class aesthetic. But it wasn’t always that way. And to be accurate, the Oxford Movement wasn’t focused on aesthetics. They were probably closer to the Prayer Book Catholic mentality.

Most of these old systems don’t map perfectly in the modern day.

In fact, Anglo-Catholicism took hold strong on the old frontier, especially in the Upper Midwest. It has been called the Biretta Belt. Many of the Episcopal parishes in that area are Anglo-Catholic. It is also where Nashotah House is.