This might actually be a worthwhile thread to pursue at little bit. The observation regarding the difference between Luther and Calvin is worthy of note and, I think, quite true.
There is one point, however, that is questionable regarding the Reformers: “They were constrained by the logic of separating from Rome to defend their new doctrinal positions.” I think Reformation era doctrine (we like “doctrine” better than “dogma” as a term) was a bit more positive than the sentence above avers. Also, from about 1525 onwards, Luther’s treatises were directed more against the errors of the more radical reformers rather than against the errors of Rome. After 1530 and the publication of the Augsburg Confession, this was decidedly so. With the rejection of Augsburg by Rome (cf., the Confutation) and thus the rejection of apostolic/ancient doctrine in favor of evolved medieval doctrine (this statement ought to get plenty of negative reaction from Catholics), the break with Rome and its magisterium was complete. But there was still the hope of preventing the fracturing of those who participated in the Reformation. In the end it proved impossible to prevent such fracturing for a church unwilling, as Rome had and has been, to wield the sword against those who opposed her doctrines.
Do you think that statement could be the Catholic interpretation of what happened? I do.