Which is why "Sola Scriptura" is invalid. The record of the early Church Fathers is completely clear on the origin and practice of the Mass from the very earliest historical records we have. "I can't find it in Scripture" is a complete copout.
The breaking of bread and sharing of wine (Body & Blood) at the Passover Feast (Seder) is in scripture indeed, and that is where the practice starts just before the Crucifixion
You mean you hold the uninspired words of men, as determined by your self-proclaimed "one true church" (RC or the competition, the EO ) and the uninspired words of popes and councils, as being the determintive standard for what the NT church believed, versus the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed (Scripture)?
While we are at it,
1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings await the church and require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and sure record of what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards sources of express Divine revelation, and which materially provides for such things as were listed above?
11. What wholly inspired oral source has spoken to man the public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
“Which is why “Sola Scriptura” is invalid. The record of the early Church Fathers is completely clear on the origin and practice of the Mass from the very earliest historical records we have. “I can’t find it in Scripture” is a complete copout. “, proves why Sola Scripture MUST be COMPLETELY valid. To take the “historical records” of the Catholic Church to be more authoritative than Scripture itself, is heresy.