* I gave you a Teaching of the Catholic Church, not my personal opinion.
I have given a definition of Protestantism based on my observation, which is supported by historical context.
* You think you did. But, you didn't. The "reformers" could not agree among themselves as to what were and what were not beliefs one was under a moral obligation to accept. Luther, for instance, condemed those who disagreed with his personal opinions. Like all Heresiarchs, he substituted himself for the Church.
That being true, your persosnal opinions as to what protestantism is is just that, a personal opinion and, therefore, not normative
Modern day Catholic doctrine teaches that non-Catholic Christians, and even Jews and Moslems, may possibly be saved, a sharp contrast with the anathemas of the Council of Trent, which condemned all who do not believe in the specific doctrines of Catholicism to Hell. The traditionalist faction, which thinks itself as the only true Catholics left on earth, regard the changes in the Mass, mostly adopted in the 1960s, as incorporating Masonic, Protestant, and pagan practices. Thus, in their opinion, which is closer to that of the Catholic Church of the 16th through 19th Centuries than is modern mainstream Catholicism, the Mass and the sacraments as they exist in mainstream Catholicism are as invalid as those in Protestant churches.
The fact is that Catholic doctrine has changed and developed over the centuries, especially in those areas not specifically addressed in Scripture, such as transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, the celibacy of the priesthood, etc. It was not until the Council of Trent that the Deuterocanonical books were finally and dogmatically included in the canon of Catholic Scripture.
The definition of who is a Catholic is adherence to Catholic doctrine, drawn from Scripture, tradition, and those teachings of the Papacy and church councils deemed infallible, as it stands at a particular moment in time. What defined Anselm, Bellarmine, or Newman as Catholic in their particular eras is not exactly the same as what is the case in 2006. In other words, the teachings of the Catholic Church are not immutable.
The fact that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc., did not agree on all specifics does not indicate a lack of unity to their essential teachings. Likewise, the Catholic Church does not reject those theologians who are not in agreement with all the principles to which they currently adhere. The unifying factors include agreement on those doctrines that define orthodoxy, which are in Scripture, were defined in the first six ecumenical councils, and are part of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine (the Trinity, the divine inspiration of Scripture, the Substitutionary Atonement, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, eternal reward and punishment), as well as specific doctrines on which they concurred and which are Protestant distinctives, such as the five "solas", the priesthood of the believer and the primary definition of the church on earth as the invisible body of Christ made up of believers, rather than the institutional church.
Those who adhere to these doctrines are Protestants; those who don't are not. R.C. Sproul and Alfred Mohler are Protestants; Shelby Spong and Peter Gomes are not. By your definition of Catholic, Karl Keating and Scott Hahn are Catholics, but Hans Kung and Nicholas Gruner are not.