Catholics agree explicitly with all of those things.
Luther's 'teachings' are Paul's teaching, straight up.
Your opinion, not mine. Mine is that Luther misinterprets Paul rather dramatically. He rips Paul out of a Hebrew covenantal context and tries to force him into a legal/forensic one. He fails to understand Paul in the context of Paul's own argument against the Judaizers, and instead interprets "works of the law" in a way that Paul did not at all mean it, as is self-evident from the context of Paul's remarks.
Have you ever actually considered the Catholic / Orthodox answer to Luther? Listen to Scott Hahn's "Romanism in Romans" sometime. You might be surprised at how far off Luther really was.
Council of Trent CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
And yet that is in opposition to what scripture teaches.
Romans 3:20-26 is explicit. Law and Gospel is a problem for Catholic teaching and has been since the Catholic church sought secular power. Similarly, Catholic teaching has obscured the process of justification of sinners by insisting that man has a part in it, rather than God calling, God's gift of grace, God's gift of faith.