Considering "the Mass practiced by Roman Catholicism" PREDATES the completion of Scripture by well over a century, that would be rather difficult for this to occur without the use of time travel. The earliest WRITTEN account of a Catholic Mass dates back to around 155 A.D., cited by Justin Martyr in his First Apology. (there were Masses before that date, just the details of earlier Masses were not preserved in writing)
New Testament bible canon wasn't complied and affirmed by Christians universally until about 390 A.D.
Apparently those Christians back then didn't get the memo that "The Mass as practiced by Roman Catholicism is in contradiction of Scripture". Thankfully protestants would show up well over 1000 years later to realize that "fact". Too bad you guys weren't around to inform the rest of Christdom back in the 300s, when people were totally fine with Catholic masses being performed worldwide.
I don't think you want to go down the road of appealing to the fallible early church fathers on this issue...or many others.
Justin does not say what you want him to say, unless you just pull a quote out of context.
You do realize that all of the books in the canon were completed prior to 100 AD....right?
You do realize Paul's writings were already accorded the status of Scripture by ~66 AD....right?
New Testament bible canon wasn't complied and affirmed by Christians universally until about 390 A.D.
Well, you've already shown a lack of knowledge on this topic so why stop here.
Apparently those Christians back then didn't get the memo that "The Mass as practiced by Roman Catholicism is in contradiction of Scripture".
If you're trying to say the believers in the early church were conducting the Lord's Supper, as it is called in Scripture, just like Roman Catholicism is today, then you've lost whatever credibility you may have had. But you really lost it in your first paragraph.
Which argument is as fallacious as arguing that the Lord's frequent invocations of Scripture as the established authoritative word of God and reproving the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees by it would be rather difficult based upon the premise that the O.T. canon was was not complied and universally affirmed by Christians until about 390 A.D.
Rather, the fact is that an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ, as manifest by the frequent appeals to Scripture including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself, Luke 24:27) and likewise NT writings such as those of Paul were recognized as Scripture. (2 Pt. 3:16)
However, if you want to make "affirmed by Christians universally" the necessary basis for whether Scripture can be the standard or not, then you will have to wait far long than about 390 A.D. (non-infallible lNorth African Councils).
For the reality is that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books - including some NT ones - continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
The earliest WRITTEN account of a Catholic Mass dates back to around 155 A.D., cited by Justin Martyr in his First Apology.
Which is that of the classic and often fatal fallacy of making the uninspired words of men (here, a converted pagan philosopher) definitive of what the NT church believed, rather than the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Acts thru Revelation, in which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in especially Acts thru Revelation.
Including the Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper. (Read here by the grace of God .
Moreover, what Justin Martyr describes is not that of a a Catholic priest converting bread and wine into "the very body which he [Christ] gave up for us on the cross," under the appearance of bread and wine, but which have actually ceased to exist, as does Christ under their respective appearances ("accidents") once the non-existent bread or wine manifest decay, and offering this body as a propitiatory sacrifice for sins, in "reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God," and to obtain spiritual life.
The furthest Justin states in in his misunderstanding is that,
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.” – (First Apology, 66)
There is nothing about a sacrifice for sins here, and the nourishment is not that of obtaining spiritual life, but "our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished."
By again, support for the Catholic miscontruance of the Lord’s supper largely relies upon reading the gospels in isolation from the rest of the NT, as well as so-called “church Fathers.” However, the uninspired (versus wholly God-inspired Scripture) words of men whose teaching came after the apostles had died, and which to varying degrees testifies to a progressive accretion of traditions not seen in the only inspired record of what the NT church believed, cannot be determinitive of what that NT church believed.
As pertains to the Lord’s supper, in Catholicism it is presented as "the heart and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1407) “a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) providing “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ” (CCC #1405) and only conducted by Catholics priests who offer it “in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead,” (CCC 1414) “cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins.” (CCC 1393) ;
But rather than the NT church understanding the Lord’s supper as being the life-giving central hub and focus of the Christian life, what we see in the the only inspired and substantive record of how the NT church understood it is that it only being actually only taught in one epistle (aside from the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts and the “fest of charity” in Jude 1:12, which is in 1 Corinthians. In which the Lord’s supper is that of remembering His death by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing union with Christ and each other as being "one bread," analogous to how pagans have fellowship in their dedicatory feasts, (metaphorical or metaphysical? 1Cor. 10)
Therefore in the next chapter the Corinthians are rebuked as not actually coming together to eat the Lord’s supper, for while they did come together for that purpose, yet they were not actually having the Lord’s supper due to how they treated the body of Christ, the church.
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
The apostle Paul thus reiterates what the Lord said at the institution of the Lord’s supper, an adding the interpretive conclusion, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27)
Catholics actually invoke this section in support of the Catholic interpretation, but the nature of the elements is not the contextual focus, though in v. 26 the bread is still called bread and the cup represents its content, while the purpose of the Lord’s supper is stated, and with the focus continuing to be that of the corporate body of the church (and which focus continues into the next chapter) .
Which is to do “show the Lord’s death till He comes,” which was by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing affirmation of them and themselves in union with Christ, with the church being as "one bread."
Therefore, by selfishly eating independent of other blood-bought faithful believers, ignoring and shaming them, then there not actually having the Lord’s supper, but were acting contrary to the very act that they were supposed to be remembering and showing, and thus in essence were guilty of being contrary to the atoning blood of Christ, by which He purchased the church, (Acts 20:28) and were being chastened for it, some even unto death. For as Paul was very conscious of, to mistreat the church was to mistreat Christ Himself. (Acts 9:4)
This being the offense, not effectually considering/recognizing/discerning the body of Christ by mistreating its members by selfishly eating independent of other blood-bought faithful believers, ignoring and shaming them, then the solution is not some defining of the nature of the bread and wine, but even contrary to requiring fasting before the Lord’s supper, the apostle enjoins:
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
In addition, no where is the Lord’s supper presented as a sacrifice for sins and a means of obtaining spiritual life, nor is the conducting of it a uniquely pastoral function, or their primary unique function, much less that of pseudo RC priests.
Instead the primary work of NT pastors (besides prayer) is preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; cf. Psalms 19:7) thus desiring the sincere milk (1Pt. 2:2; cf. (1Co. 3:22) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, and by the preaching of which pastors “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) by which they are "nourished." (1 Timothy 4:6 ) Glory be to God.