Reply #7: R.S.o.F., and n.o.t.a. [View All]

Religious Society of Friends aka Quakers. FGC version ('liberal', 'universalist' as opposed to 'Christocentric').

Uh, none of the above. It is considered within the ability of each worshiper to experience the same and be sanctified or blessed in such a way without assistance of material guides.

The relevant passages from Freiday's edition/translation of Barclay's Apology (1674, Latin in the original):
(I spare you the footnotes, ~10x as long)

Proposition 13 (the Eucharist)
p. 334-5, Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, and Virtualism
Christians are divided into three principal opinions on this matter. The first of these is transubstantiation, which means that the bread and wine become the very same substance as the body, flesh, and blood of Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary and crucified by the Jews. After what they call "words of consecration" it is no longer bread but the body of Christ.
The second opinion is that the substance of the bread remains, but that the body is also in, with, and under the bread. Thus both the substance of the bread, and of the body, flesh, and blood of Christ are there.
The third denies both of these, and states that the body of Christ is not there corporally or substantially, but nevertheless it is truly and sacramentally received by the faithful when they use the bread and wine. How or why it is there is unexplainable. Still we are to believe that it is there, even though, more properly, it is in heaven.
(footnotes that t./Catholicism, c./Lutheranism; Virtualism is the theory of John Calvin, and notice is taken of the Memorial interpretation of the Eucharist by Zwingli.)

p. 336 None Of These Interpretations Has Attained The Truth And Substance Of This Mystery
It is unnecessary to refute these several opinions since each of their authors has sufficiently refuted the others. Each of them is also as strong in using scripture and reason to refute contrary opinion as he is weak in using it to establish his own. No doubt others have noticed this too. It must be concluded that none of them has attained truth and substance of this mystery.
Calvin is a good example. <....>

p. 351 We Do Not Find The Ceremony Obligatory
Do we not have good reason to avoid this confusion since we do not find this practice any more obligatory for us than the ceremonies which they (other Christian groups- ed.) have set aside? This is particularly true because they will never agree to on the nature, efficacy, or manner of administrating it. And the reason for this is because they are not content to to follow what is plainly set forth in the scriptures, but insist on intermixing their own inventions. <....>

(this is the conclusion about the eucharist:)
p. 361 Those Who Practice This Ceremony In Good Conscience Should Be Indulged
X. Finally, if there are any in this day who practice this ceremony with a true tenderness of spirit, and with real conscience toward God, and in the manner of the primitive Christians, as recognized in scripture, that is another matter. I do not doubt but that they are indulged by that they may be indulged in it. The Lord may take these facts into consideration and appear to them for a time when they use these things. Many of us have known him to do this for us in our own times of ignorance. But there is always the provision that they must not try to force these things on others, or to be critical of those who have been delivered from these things and who do not cling to them with pertinacity.
For we are certain that the day has dawned in which God has risen and has dismissed all these ceremonies and rites. He is to be worshipped only in Spirit. He appears to those who wait upon him. To seek God in these things is, like Mary at the sepulchre, seeking the living among the dead. For we know that he has risen and has been revealed in Spirit. He is leading his children out of these rudiments, that they may walk with him in his light, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

That last bit is actually a pretty good gloss on all of Quaker practice- not that we meet its standard all the time, maybe not even much of the time.

Oh, looking at Barclay's Conclusion (to the whole work), there's some great stuff to put a sharp bone in the throat of the Christian Right true believer any and every day of the week. Sorry, I can't resist just putting up two plus paragraphs of it (p. 439), even if it's a little off topic...

When we hear them talk foolishly about heaven and hell and the last judgment, we urge them to depart from the hellish condition they are in. We ask them to come to the judgment of Christ in their hearts, to believe in the Light, and follow it, in order to be able to sit in the heavenly places that are in Christ Jesus. From this, they maliciously say that we deny any heaven or hell except that which is within us, and that we deny any general judgment.
The Lord knows what ugly slanders they cast upon us. For God has raised us for the purpose of confounding the wisdom of the wise, and bringing to naught the understanding of the prudent. He did it so that we might pull down the dead, dark, corrupt image and mere shadow and shell of Christianity with which Antichrist has deceived the nations. He did it in and by his own Spirit in a despised people so that no flesh could glory in his presence.
For this purpose he has called us to be the first fruits of those who serve him and who no longer worship him with the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the Spirit. Although we are few in number, compared with others, and weak in the outward strength that we reject completely, and foolish when compared with the wise ones of the world, yet God has made us prosper. In spite of great opposition he will provide for us, so that neither the artful wisdom or violence of men or devils will be able to quench the little spark that has appeared. It will grow until it consumes what opposes it. <....>