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.
I disagree with only two things you write - the idea that Rome departed from the Faith...
Please don't misrepresent me like that. I said Rome departed from certain teachings. Specifically and most importantly, that would include the efficacy of Christ's suffering and death.
...and that the Faith upon which it is based is not handed on by Apostolic Succession in the Episcopate.
I'm saved by Christ alone, not saved by apostolic succession. Episcopacy is addressed adequately in our confessions.
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.
Nice of you to remind me. Luther got in as much trouble for his views on real presence as he did for his views on faith alone (didn't you know that?).
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.
I won't correct you since the use of a strawman helps you justify your beliefs (per 1 Cor 8:13).
Yes, Luther preached a doctrine from the Church Councils. But it is different from the Catholic Faith.
How is it different? What you've ignored in your sophistry is that no early church council would have issued anathema against anyone who preached Faith Alone -- particularly since that's precisely what they believed, taught, and confessed.
Luther's teachings were very much catholic (small c), yet Leo X issued a bull (including a death warrant -- where is that acceptable in Scripture or tradition?) on Luther. Leo's teachings, and those of his envoys, weren't catholic (small c) despite their positions in the church. Go figure.
We are saved by faith through grace for Christ's sake ALONE, not by other men regardless of their office or efforts.