Another issue would be, “Were the “Reformers” trying to improve the Church or impose false doctrines on it?”
Clearly the answer is both. They wanted legitimate reforms and illegitimate ones at the same time.
Also, did the “Reformers” truly represent the faithful?
No. Although the “Reformers” tapped into popular anger over discipline issues, they did not have wide-spread support to change doctrines, dispense with the Mass and so on. That’s why the princes had to support the “Reformers” for them to succeed. Eamon Duffy has made this abundantly clear in Stripping of the Altars.
““Were the “Reformers” trying to improve the Church or impose false doctrines on it?””
Do you suppose they were intentionally attempting to impose false doctrines? Certainly, they did impose false doctrines for which there was no need in my opinion. If they did know what they were doing, do you suppose they felt the ends justified the means?
Some people today excuse what the Reformers did by saying that they were cut off from The Church in the East and so could only create their Reformed Church from their “sola scriptura” worldview. That of course is patently false. Within a generation from Luther and Calvin there was regular correspondence between the Reformers and Orthodox hierarchs discussing theology and ecclesiology. The Reformers rejected both the theology and the ecclesiology of The Church in the East and virtually all the dogmatic declarations of the Ecumenical Councils of The Church. Since that theology and ecclesiology would have addressed all of the original reformers’ concerns, one has to suspect the motivation of the later reformers. As +John Chrysostomos said:
“The desire to rule is the mother of heresies.”