I am not insulting you. I'm sorry for offending you but this theological claim that bread held by Priests (Catholic Priests I am not sure - not Protestant pastors) is the flesh of Jesus is not supported by scripture.
John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
This is a metaphor for faith in Christ (the living bread) in order to live forever and the sacrifice of Christ's flesh to grant us everlasting life. It says nothing about those in the Church (Priests) holding up a piece of bread and it literally becoming the flesh of Jesus.
There is also no purgatory in scripture. There is nothing in scripture that states that Priests can forgive sins much less a formula for what "partial" percentages can be forgiven. All Christian churches have differences but these ones I've mentioned (and others) are based on strained interpretations of scripture.
You say, "I am not insulting you. I'm sorry for offending you but this theological claim that bread held by Priests (Catholic Priests I am not sure - not Protestant pastors) is the flesh of Jesus is not supported by scripture."
Of course it's supported by Scripture. You simply don't wish to accept the Scriptural statement as literal, that's all--despite the fact that Jesus meant it literally. I notice you quote the passage that is most subject to a metaphoric interpretation: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:51.)
What you don't cite is the passage which follows: "In all truth I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have life in you. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life."
Now what's interesting about this is that John describes Jesus as switching from the Greek verb "phago", which means "to eat," to a much more literal-sounding word--"trogo", which means "to chew" or to "gnaw or nibble." In other words, he is making it very clear Jesus is speaking literally, not figuratively. And then, as if to make himself absolutely clear, Jesus adds: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." And the word he uses is the Greek word "alethes" which means "real" in the sense of "actual" or "true". In other words, Jesus is verbally cuing his listeners to receive the literal denotation of what he is saying.
And look at what follows. Those who hear Jesus were immediately shocked. In other words, they understood he was speaking literally. They even complained: "This is a hard saying." And they were indignant: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus was communicating in words that conveyed a literal sense and everything in his listeners rebelled against what he said. And then they walked away.
Nor does Jesus explain to the twelve afterwards that he was only speaking metaphorically. He had explained his parables and metaphors in the past and would do so again in the future. But this one instance he simply lets his literal meaning stand. And remember, these were Semites, Jews, men accustomed to teachings couched in metaphors and parables. Yet in this instance they took him literally. Jesus even asks them if they will therefore also walk away since they have heard what he has just said. They tell him they have faith in him notwithstanding-and affirm their trust in him. But clearly they are baffled.
Now let's fast-forward to the early Church fathers. How was the meaning of the Eucharist transmitted to them from the apostles? In fact it is always in a literal sense. Over and over they affirm its literal meaning. Ignatius, for instance, declares [Smyrn 6,2] that "the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised". He clearly intends this to be taken literally, because he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. Justin Martyr does likewise. So also Irenaeus who teaches that the bread and wine are really, and not symbolically, the Lord's body and blood. Not only this, but the Church fathers were unanimous in recognizing that the Eucharist constituted a SACRIFICE precisely because of the Real Presence of Jesus on the altar.
So sure Jesus spoke in metaphors sometimes. But not in John 6. This is certain because He Himself used lanugage that could only be taken literally. And that was how his listeners actually understood him. And that was also how the apostles and the early Church fathers understood him. And that is how Catholics understand him today.
It's late so I'll save Purgatory for another day.