From the Dictionary:
ANATHEMA:
Somebody or something formally denounced: somebody or something cursed, denounced, or excommunicated by a religious authority
So Martin Luther and John Calvin are still under Roman Catholic condemnation but not their followers?
You can believe what Luther and Calvin believed but not be anathema?
As I explained, “anathema” has a specific technical meaning in canon law. The secular dictionary definition isn’t going to give you that. Because it is a penalty under church law, like all such penalties, it doesn’t apply to non- Catholics. That doesn’t change the fact that some of what the reformers taught is heretical. But you can’t argue the fate of non-Catholics in Catholic teaching based on a penalty clause which is no longer in force, and never applied to them in the first place.
It was their doctrines that were denounced. But both men were baptized Catholics and Luther an ordained priest. As for their followers, that would be those who openly professed such doctrines. In Germany and elsewhere, the common people usuallu had no choice as they were required to follow the dictates of their local authorities. This would be less true of the “sects,” who were persecuted by both Catholics and Lutherans. Freedom of religion —as a concept— was anathema even to the sectarians. They did not believe any man had the right to err about the true doctrine of Christ.