I have no interest in what sundry charlatans taught, but if they also were familiar with "the flesh profiteth nothing" passage and concluded from it that the Holy Eucharist is there to profit, rather, our spirit, then yes, they understood it correctly. Even an ignorant Protestant pastor can we correct once in a while.
Then why are you catholic?
Then how on earth could you have any standing to criticize them, and their teachings -- if there be no interest in what was being taught by these whom you label "charlatans", how those things were being spoken of by men such as these and yet others --- how that may compare favorably or unfavorably with what the RCC of those eras can be seen to have taught --- oh -- and how not only things were taught -- but how those things were then internalized and understood to be, in practice, by the people who were taught whichever wordings were employed?
Wycliffe was not ignorant, nor were any of the others which I mentioned.
Being that as it may, in that they were correct enough --- the real issue I was driving towards was that these same men (and their views) were often condemned by the RCC for views they held in regards to the Lord's Supper.
Which means --- that the RCC was wrong when they condemned the various propositions, and/or so-called "Protestant" views or expressions associated with this issue (when those were not limited to merely memorial Zwinglian-like understanding, perhaps)