The problem is not how "Catholic" the early church fathers were, but how "unCatholic" the church of Rome became over the years. I am not one who believes the Roman church is antichrist (although I wince at some of the language in ch 12-14 of the Council of Trent). NEITHER DID LUTHER. His goal was to REFORM the church. Their response was "recant or die" and so we have the split. Schisms in Christendom are always unpleasant, and never happy and always unfortunate. Rectifying them always calls for repentance.
I hope it does not sound too terribly mushy and dismissive of truth to say that we Protestants should ALWAYS be willing to look at our history with Roma and be willing to repent. On the other hand Rome should certainly be willing to repent and renounce its schismatic ways in denying the teaching of the church fathers even as it lauds them. My opinion is that the Roman church left the true biblical and apostolic faith over the issues of:
1) Infused vs Imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is just the corpse of Pelagianism, all dolled up to look different. It is, as Augustine clearly understood, a modified works righteousness. Men save themselves, and God helps. Thank God that even those who advocate it do not seem to truly understand what they are pushing. Otherwise, they would be damned. Trent accurately called it (the issue of justifying faith) an issue for "anathema" (the word rendered damned or condemned in Galatians 1. They are simply, two different gospels.
2)The authority of church tradition vs the authority of Scripture. No protestant denies that we ALL reverence the opinions of good and godly men who have gone before. I truly believe that protestants disservice themselves by being so ignorant of the luminaries in the pre and post Reformation Roman Church. Also, I will be the first to tell you that Luther was a wack job in his tirades against the Jews (Himmler used his suggestions as to what to do with Jews as an operational plan for the 3rd Reich), the covenanters were a bunch of hotheads, many Reformers will have to answer SERIOUS questions before God over what they did to the anabaptists, and that the burning of Servetus was not Calvin's, er, "most glorious moment" (let's leave it at that). However the Roman Church has an UNbiblical view of tradition, which prevents it from (as a church) repenting over its clear and unambiguous errors, whether they be the "reverse jihadism" of the Crusades, or the Council of Trent, or the monstrous wickedness of Torquemada. Once they have been pronounced by the Pope, they become a part of the word of God as it is handed down by tradition. This is horrid. The idea that the church speaks with the voice of God (there seems to be some merit for a modified view of this in Matthew 18, when Jesus talks about being "present" when excommunication is being pronounced) is ONLY as the church speaks in submission to the spoken word of God. There is a great deal of foolishness, poppycock, and downright damnable heresy that exists in the "authoritative" declarations of the Roman Church and they simply need to repent of this wickedness. Scripture judges church tradition, even as tradition helps us understand the proper (including the historical) view of the word of God.
3) Marioloty and reverence for saints is nothing more than syncretism with the pagan tribes which came into the church. The foolishness and idolatry of praying to Mary and/or saints who have gone before is simply unbiblical and idolatrous. On this, the reformers were dead on, and the Roman church is simply in error.
That said, I DO understand and I DO have a great deal of sympathy why the "praying to the saints" stuff happens. I had a dear brother in Christ die of cancer this past week. I commented to a friend that I understood why there this practice (praying to saints) could happen. Bill (not his real name) is not "up there" with Christ, but I still have a very real and substantive connection with him. There is a biblical union with ALL of Christ's people, not just the ones who have gone on. Death is horrid obscene and a rupture in the union and connection I share with this man. Christ has spit in the face of death, and stomped the "life" out of it, and the rupture betwee "Bill" and I is, in fact, an illusion. I am one with this man, and his death has not changed that. The ancients instinctively knew that, and the spiritists and witches actually have a better view of the fact that we inhabit a spirit world than most Christians do. They (the pagans) err in rejecting the one true door (Christ, through faith) INTO that spirit world, but they are more cognizant of it than most Christians, who are functional rationalists except at 11:00 am on Sunday mornings. There is more room for "mysticism" in the Roman church, and so this reality is received (that is GOOD), and transformed into a spirtual discipline of praying to human beings who have died and gone on (most decidedly BAD and a direct violation of the first commandment).
When asked why do I not return to the "mother church" when some very kind souls (I believe very sincere and saved people) inform me that the age of indulgences is over, my response is "to be sure. Rome should repent of these unbiblical practices and join the true faith." If we could have unity on these issues, I personally would not care who joined who, to be frank.
You have a warped sense of what you call the “Roman Church”.