He was defending Scripture - isn't that traditional enough?
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.
Christ . . . is the Master of my doctrine . . . it is not mine, but His own pure Gospel. (Against the Falsely So-Called Spiritual Estate of the Pope and Bishops, July 1522)
For inasmuch as I know for certain that I am right, I will be judge above you and above all the angels, as St. Paul says, that whoever does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved. For it is the doctrine of God, and not my doctrine. (Against the Falsely So-Called Spiritual Estate of the Pope and Bishops, July 1522)
No, not at all. There is no comparison. Luther opposed the traditional Mass. He opposed the priesthood. He opposed the notion of Sacrifice. He was a heretic. What ever else may be said about the Archbishop, he was not a heretic. He simply stood his ground and was absolutely traditional in exactly the way the Church had been for two thousand years. He would not be complicit in the destruction of the faith as he believed it.
In this case, it was the Pope who was the innovator, like Luther. It was he who was the heretic, the revolutionary, a pontiff who pushed for a pan-religious syncretism and indifferentism that had been opposed by his preconciliar predecessors. It is he who is even yet elevating heretics to the cardinalate and still doesn't "get it". You don't want to admit this--so you ignore the Pope's heterodoxy altogether. But it is at the heart of this conflict.
Oh, yeah? Why did he toss out books of Scripture, that did not fit his Novus religion, from his Novus Bible?