Liturgical scholars are not exactly sure when the Roman Mass came together in the form we know. We find it pretty much intact in the earliest manuscripts (from the 6th-7th centuries if I remember right). The Mass as described by St. Augustine in the 4th century shows that certain key features were already in place in Africa. And there is some evidence that it went back all the way to the earliest liturgies in Rome: particularly the absence of an epiclesis which seems to date to a time before the theology of the Holy Ghost was completely worked out.
Basically, as far as Rome goes, the traditional Mass is the only one we have solid evidence of; there are certain disputed liturgies like the Canon of Hippolytus, but they are of questionable provenance.
But not back to the NT. More proof that Rome's claims of apostolic succession are bogus.