I await your reply to my view of things.
I started to respond point-by-point, but I'm going to let it rest. I'll only say that Luther did not found any church, Christ did and that church is one. The church is not based upon succession alone, but on certain teachings -- teachings which, with Luther, I agree Rome departed. On matters where your denomination is still correct, I fight vehemently against those who'd throw the baby out with the bath water. It's too bad you cannot rise above your spite and do the same in return. After all, various Catholic scholars over the years have pointed out that Luther's confession at Augsburg was well within Catholic tradition.
Take it easy, separated brother.
Of course much of what Luther wrote was Catholic. He certainly had a devout belief in the Real Presence and the privileges of Mary, for example.
The premise of all non-Catholic Christian denominations ultimately has to be that there is no authority in the Church heirarchy. For if you admit that there is an authority which must be heeded, then you immediately call into question the founding of that denomination against the authority that then existed. I can't see it another way.
The only possible escape is claiming there is authority, but that it is not without error. But an authority in matters of belief that can err is no authority at all, but simply an opinion with power behind it. I suppose what I would view as a cynical view of the Church could maintain this, and thus claim a continuity from the Apostles to Luther. But I have a difficult time squaring this idea with Christ's promise to be with us always, and to send the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth.
Yes, Luther preached a doctrine from the Church Councils. But it is different from the Catholic Faith. Either he's right and I'm wrong, or I'm right and he's wrong, or we are both wrong. We can't be both right. Regardless of what you want to select, there is a need to seek out the truth in prayer, since where discord of belief exists, it cannot be the will of Christ.