2 Timothy 2:2 affirms mentoring and the passing along of sound doctrine, something that’s been affirmed in Scripture for millennia. It does not affirm any kind of human apostolic lineage, any kind of “tag-you’re-it” mentality.
You asked, “Could you point out where ANY of the Reformers said that apostolic succession was invalid?”
Yes, John Calvin, among others. Here are some things he wrote on this topic:
“It therefore follows that this pretense of succession is vain unless their descendants conserve safe and uncorrupted the truth of Christ which they have received at their fathers’ hands, and abide in it.”
“... we deny the title of Successors of the Apostles to those who have abandoned their faith and doctrine.”
“... we deny not that there has been an uninterrupted succession of the Church from the beginning of the gospel even to our day; but we do not concede that it was so fixed to external shows — that it has hitherto always been, and will henceforth always be, in possession of the Bishops.”
“I know that this continuous Succession is extolled by Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, and some other ancient writers. But it is mere imposition to attempt to employ their testimony in defense of the tyranny of the Papacy, which has nothing in common with the ancient form of the Church.”
“Wherein does Succession consist, if it be not in perpetuity of doctrine? But if the doctrine of the Apostles has been corrupted, nay, abolished and extinguished by those who would be regarded as their successors, who would not deride their foolish boasting? By the same kind of argument I might prove that all tyrants have been the best supporters of freedom, since there was an uninterrupted transition from the republic to their monarchy.”
“... because by the tyranny of the Pope, the continuous line of ordination has been broken, a new expedient is requisite for the restoration of the Church. Vainly indeed do the Papists pride themselves on that chain, which, as I have said, they themselves have broken. For is the Papacy anything but a revolt from Christ? With what front, then, can apostates boast themselves successors?”
For Reformers, it’s all about sound doctrine and truth; for Roman Catholics, it’s all about a succession of people. They *can* be the same, but in some instances when the people down the line lose grasp of sound doctrine, they are not.
That's YOUR interpretation of the verse, that DOES NOT make it right.
It seems that the unordained lawyer denied the Church's CLAIM to succession, he did not deny the validity of the concept.
Why do you think that Lutherans and Anglicans still claim apostolic succession where they can?
Any comment on the pictures I posted?