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.
True - but he thought he wasn't.
What ever else may be said about the Archbishop, he was not a heretic.
I think we can give him that.