Francis Chan, leaning Romanist?

[Humble Disciple]

one view of the Eucharist for the first 1,500 years of church history (whether right or wrong), he is talking about Catholicism, not Luther and Calvin.

What specifically did he say that would lend itself to Catholic transubstantiation, rather than a Protestant understanding of the real presence?

Is he specifically saying the accidents of the bread remain, while the substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christ's body, as Catholicism does?

Is he saying that the Eucharist is a literal yet unbloody re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, worthy of our adoration, as the Catholics do?

As far as Chan wanting unity between Catholics and Protestants, what does he have in mind? Catholics and Protestants working together, as equals, for common causes or having all Protestants subsumed under the authority of Rome?

 

[Humble Disciple]

Francis Chan didn't believe that miraculous healings could happen, until he performed them himself, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking during the virtual International Association of Healing Ministries conference this week, Chan said, "What I do know is for many years I didn't believe in healing, I didn't believe in miracles, it was pretty much what I was taught in seminary.

“Humbly, I have to say, I used to ridicule people who spoke in tongues or prophesied or believed they could heal, even though when I personally read the Scriptures, I saw this available.”...

Earlier this year, Chan shared that he and a team of other Christians supernaturally healed several people at a rural village in Myanmar, including a little boy and girl who were deaf.

"Every person I touched was healed," the Crazy Love author said in a sermon delivered at Moody Bible Institute’s Founders Week Conference.
Francis Chan says he didn't believe in healing, miracles until recently

 

[37818]

I didn’t know that for the first 1,500 years of church history everyone saw it [the Eucharist/Lord’s supper] as the literal body and blood of Christ. And it wasn’t till 500 years ago someone popularized a thought that it’s just a symbol and nothing more. I didn’t know that!

What is the earliest evidence of the misinterpretation of the remembrance?

 

[rlvaughn]

What specifically did he say that would lend itself to Catholic transubstantiation, rather than a Protestant understanding of the real presence?

As for the totality of your questions, you will have to research them yourself. That was beyond my main interest. The OP does not make a claim exactly what Chan believes about transubstantiation, but whether the readers might think he is leaning toward Rome. As far as what he said, I quoted three things, none of which say directly what he believes about the Eucharist. However, they do seem to put his thoughts in a Catholic context

I didn’t know that for the first 1,500 years of church history everyone saw it [the Eucharist/Lord’s supper] as the literal body and blood of Christ. And it wasn’t till 500 years ago someone popularized a thought that it’s just a symbol and nothing more. I didn’t know that!

...for the first time, someone put a pulpit in the front of the gathering, because, before that, it was always the body and blood of Christ that was central to the gathering.

I say that because the Church is more divided than at any time in history...And for a thousand years there was just one church. We are so used to growing up at a time when there are literally over 30,000 denominations.

What is the earliest evidence of the misinterpretation of the remembrance?

Not a history I have studied much. The Roman Catholic Church, I think, officially defined it at the fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215, but I am sure it was taught by many much before that time. Of course, they claim John 6:54-56.

There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors.

I suspect this is a subject on which it might be easy to read one's views into what someone has written, such as whether they mean partaking literally or spiritually (and maybe sometimes the views of the translators affect the outcome).

 

[Yeshua1]

I am surprised that Francis Chan is a newcomer to church history. Well, maybe I am not surprised. He seems to be enthralled with pre-Reformation Christianity. One of the foundational truths that came out of the Reformation is not that the Lord's Supper is the focal point of Christian worship, but the supremacy of the Word of God. Except for a few burning wicks, for nearly one thousand years after the fall of the Western Empire, there was a famine for the Word of God. If Chan winds up swimming the Tiber it will be because he has abandoned the authority of the Word.

The true Gospel being rediscovered was great theme of Reformation, so Chan should be looking at that!

 

[37818]

Not a history I have studied much. The Roman Catholic Church, I think, officially defined it at the fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215, but I am sure it was taught by many much before that time. Of course, they claim John 6:54-56.

The conflation of Jesus' teaching He is the true bread from heaven (John 6:64) with Jesus' institution of His remembrance, Luke 22:19-21.