It is extremely difficult as a Catholic to talk to a non Catholic about the John 6 Bread of Life discourse. It seems as if we’re speaking two different languages. Well guess what? We truly are!
It has to do with one word in the passage that changes the entire meaning when you look at the original Aramaic, not the Greek. Why? Because Jesus and his followers were Jewish. They spoke to each other and the listeners heard in Aramaic. Not Greek.
The word in question is the word “eat”. We read eat in what is translated from the Greek to English. But the Aramaic word that was used by Jesus and what the Jews heard was the word TROGO. This particular word in Aramaic means to chew or gnaw, particularly in a slow manner. When we insert that word instead of the English word eat, Jesus’ meaning becomes crystal clear…chewing on his flesh in the form of consecrated bread. That is why when the Jews heard him speak that word, many of the disciples walked away from him because it was very clear what he meant…and too difficult a teaching. And then to make it even more compelling, when Jesus asked the remaining disciples if they were going to leave too, Saint Peter spoke for the group and said, “Where would we go? You have the words of life!” In any other instance when there was a possible misunderstanding, Jesus clearly explained so as not to confuse. But instead, he let that word remain…the elephant hovering in the air… because that is the word he meant.
The Holy Eucharist as consecrated in the same way it has been since the beginning of the church by priests in apostolic succession remains the mysterious Bread of Life as Christ’s teaching in John 6.
Come home to the Catholic Church!
Here is a great article…
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/87-eucharistic-apologetics/240-flesh-in-john-6.html
95 Questions 