I did not need you to reproduce the Wikipedia article on transubstantiation. It is related to, but not the same as, Eucharistic Realism, i.e. the firm conviction, based on the very words of Jesus Christ, that the Eucharist is His True Body and Blood. This was the continuous belief of Christians for centuries before the technical term "transubstantiation" was adopted, and for 1500+ before the ancient doctrine was rejected altogether by the Protestant new paradigm.
And I showed you that it wasn't until Trent that Rome formally declared its position on this topic.
And yes...I did show where there was debate about the Mass/Transubstantiation.
"Did any Christian believe the Mass was in contradiction to the NT until the 16th or 17th century?"
How 'bout these fellows?
24“Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27“Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” Acts 15: 24-29 NASB
Early enough?
"It wasn't until Trent that Rome formally declared its position on this topic."
Not so. The Church declared it position as early as c. AD 53–54 (early enough for you, ealgeone??) in 1 Corinthians, esp. Chapter 11, v.27-29 where it deals with eucharistic sacrilege in this way: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
"And yes...I did show where there was debate about the Mass/Transubstantiation."
I repeat: I didn't ask whether there was a "debate" about the word "transubstantiation." I asked whether anybody said the Mass contradicted the NT. As I pointed out before, there was a Mass before the word "transubstantiation" even existed, and the Greeks preferred to express Eucharistic Realism with the word "metaousiosis," and still do, Byzantine Greek Catholics as well.
By way of analogy, there was belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Three Persons in one God, before the word "Trinity" existed. In the early 3rd century, Tertullian was the first we know of to use the Latin word "Trinity" in this precise way, to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one in essence—not one in Person"
It did not become formalized and defined as a doctrine until the 4th century (Nicaea) and subsequent Councils; this does NOT indicate that it was not believed until the 4th century, but that it was not philosophically defined until the 4th century.
The formal definition of a doctrine is *never* the beginning of a doctrine. Formal definition comes centuries and even millennia after the beginning of a doctrine, which goes back to Apostolic times. It is intended to define the matter precisely enough to end the debate.
And there was plenty of debate. That's why there were Councils. Heck it took 100+ years to overcome the Arians who claimed that "there was a time when the Son was not."
It took around 400 years to nail down an official definition of which books were part of the Canon of Scripture.
That does NOT mean that the canonical books were not in use prior to the 5th century., On the contrary,it was the widespread usage of these Books in the Liturgies of the various churches, which served to settle the question. First came the practice; far later came the definition.
You claim, as well, that this passage from Acts contradicts the Mass:
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols
and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication..."
Acts 15: 24-29
Do you really think they were preaching against the Body and Blood of Christ? That was not the topic, or even close, as you can readily see from the context. They were debating the relevance of Jewish Kosher laws for Gentile Christians.
They weren't talking about Christ's Blood. They were talking about contamination from the consumption of non-kosher cow and goat and mutton meat and the blood thereof.
Christ's Blood in the Eucharist was not seen as some disgusting non-kosher beverage, but as sacred. So much so, that if you received it unworthily -- as St. Paul explained above in 1 Corinthians--- you were truly defiled by blood-guilt.
An early expression of the Eucharistic Realism of the Mass (before the word "transubstantiation" was in use, by the way) is found in Justin Martyr approx. 100 years after 1 Corinthians:
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these;
but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,
having been made flesh by the Word of God,
had both flesh and blood for our salvation,
so likewise have we been taught
that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,
and from which our blood and flesh
by transmutation are nourished,
is the flesh and blood of that Jesus
who was made flesh."
- (St. Justin Martyr, c. 153 AD, First Apology)
Jesus: "This is My Body."
The believer: "Amen."