There is no order-of-worship recorded in the New Testament, so your statement is resting on absolutely nothing. However, the earliest patristic records of Christian worship sound very much like a description of a Mass.
If there is no order of worship in the NT then the Romam Catholic Mass isn't in the NT either. You'd think if something as important as the Mass, as claimed by the RCC, would be clear in the NT. By your admission it is not.
Big difference between sounds like and is.
There is no order-of-worship recorded in the New Testament, so your statement is resting on absolutely nothing. However, the earliest patristic records of Christian worship sound very much like a description of a Mass
If you had read what i said in post 70 you might have understand why i said there there no ordained Catholic priests and no Catholic Mass in the NT church.
Whereas in the only inspired substantive record of what the NT church did, and how they understood the gospels, there is not manifest a separate ordained sacerdotal class of believers whose unique primary active function is offering the Mass as a sacrifice for sins, and thus Catholic Bibles sometimes use the distinctive word for a separate ordained sacerdotal class of believers ("hiereus, later wrongly becoming "priest" in English) for them, which the Holy Spirit never does;
And whereas even presbuteros/episkopeos (same persons) are never even shown conducting the Lord's supper and offering up sacrifice for sins thereby, or charged with doing so, esp. as their unique primary function and spiritually feeding the flock thereby, but instead are charged with feeding the flock (Acts 20:28) by preaching the word of God (2Tim. 4:2) which is said to nourish (1Tim. 4:6) and them build up, (Acts 20:32) being called(1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat" (Heb. 5:12-14);
And whereas (in contrast to the constant central prominence in Catholicism) in the only sure and substantial description of the Lord's supper in record of the NT church it is not the nature of the elements consumed that were not be recognized, as recently shown here , but that of the body of believers, being one bread, but which was denied by ignoring and shaming others;
Then in this surpassing Scriptural light the distinctive Catholic priesthood and its Mass are both missing, and if the mention of breaking of bread in Acts, "continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) then it does not suggests these gatherings had to be conducted by apostles (there being no other leadership until later), unlike ordaining presbuteros/episkopeos.
However, the earliest patristic records of Christian worship sound very much like a description of a Mass.
Typical recourse, but Scripture judges them, which even the veracity of apostles was subject to. (Acts 17:11) Meanwhile though some sort of "Real Presence" belief is sometimes attested to by ECFs, does "very much like a description of a Mass." mean the daily celebration of Eucharist being uniquely conducted by Catholic priests as a sacrifice for sins and spiritual food, and consuming a wafer and wisp of wine definitively separated from a shared meal, and if so it sets it in contrast to what we see best manifest in Scripture