Luther went on a pilgrimage to Rome and saw all sorts of things, including selling of the indulgences. But he also noticed that the official truth sometimes differed from the Scripture, as he read it.
But this happens all the time. The KVJ version of the Lord's Prayer is incorrect as compared to the original. It not only reverses some things, but contains incorrect tense in one instance and refers to "evil" in general rather than the "evil one" in particular as the original does. So, the same kind of error that bothered Luther continues now in his tradition generally known as the Protestant "church."
In addition to that, Luther and his apostates attacked the early church (and I don't mean a building in Rome), everything about the Church as it existed for 1,500 years and still does in the East and the West.
The Ever-Virgin Mary was reduced to just a "woman," and saints were "retired." Holy icons and images of saintly people were destroyed and called "idols."
Attacking the (im)morality of some Catholic clergy, Luther substituted his own "morality" by telling his followers to "sin boldly" for God will forgive them as long as they believe (but apparently his formula doesn't apply to Roman Catholics!).
He elevated man as the ultimate interpretor of the Scripture which exists only thanks to the Church which Luther called "apostate."
His man-made "church" has since splintered and continues to splinter into thousands of groups that are separate from each other, each claiming the "true" and inerrant interpretation of the faith through the Bible.
Luther proclaimed the Church to be in "error" theologically, but some half-educated backwoods self-made pastor interprets the Bible correctly through the Holy Spirit (imagine that -- Luther suggests the Holy Spirit has left the Church, but comes to every Joe who reads the Bible!)
I've heard you say this a couple of times. Luther was obviously aware that Romans specifically addresses this idea and categorically rejects it, so I don't understand how he could have held this view. Do you have a citation as to where this comes from?
His man-made "church" has since splintered and continues to splinter into thousands of groups that are separate from each other, each claiming the "true" and inerrant interpretation of the faith through the Bible.
I don't agree that this is a fair representation of the different Protestant churches. I know that we certainly don't look down on any other Bible-believing church and say "we're in and you're out". Of course some cults have formed over the years and we have nothing to do with them, but that is to be expected when there is freedom.
I don't suppose it occurs to you that babbling bizarre inectives about Martin Luther does little to cause anyone to come to your faith.
Actually, looking at it from a Catholic point of view -- Luther's protest forced the Catholic Church to look inwards and see the corruption that had sunk within (Alexander VI, the Borgia pope was really the last straw), and it has weeded out this evil and emerged the stronger for it --> we can see the results of this long house-cleaning now, under Pope Benedict. Would Luther have revolted now? I doubt it. Like other man made issues, Luther's revolt may have started off well, but it rapidly got distorted and deviant.