The event as it stands is not; but it is a collection of many themes and ideas.
Most of them are clearly Biblical, although it could be argued that some parts may not be. The featured part is the Lords Supper, which is clearly a Biblical event that Christ told his followers to repeat. There are also Scripture readings galore, preaching, and hymns of praise. I dont see much there to distinguish the Mass from the worship services of most other churches except that theirs is not as elaborate.
There are things in Mormonic worship that are Biblical, but it is the distinctives which are the issue.
For one, there simply is no Catholic priesthood manifest in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), most specifically Acts thru Revelation.
In the NT, besides the apostles and deacons, pastors are called presbuteros=senior and episkopos=overseer, which refers to those in one office, (Titus 1:5-7; cf. Acts 20:17,28) but which does not describe a separate sacerdotal class of believers, which in Greek are called “hiereus” (priest) and “archiereus" (high priest) collectively over 280 times, which distinctive word the Spirit of Christ never uses for NT pastors, but which Catholicism translates for her clergy, due to an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT pastors engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their unique primary active function ("most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice" - Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Cardinal John J. O'Conner) , this clergy alone offering up the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sin.
Which the Holy Spirit never describes them as even doing (while it is congruous to assume that they presided over the Lord's Supper, the issue is of this being the "true body and blood of Christ and a sacrifice for sins, and of Catholic priests alone being qualified to effect and offer this sacrifice).
The English word "priest" itself is not the problem, though it is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," but the problem is that Catholicism translates both hiereus and presbuteros as "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing them as a separate sacerdotal (Eucharistic) class of believers.
Rather than dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sins, instead the primary active function of pastors is preaching, (1 Timothy 4:2) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7) In contrast, nowhere in the record of the NT church is the Lord's supper described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself.
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But otherwise nowhere are NT pastors called hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distinctive class of "hiereus"
was a later development.
In addition, the normative state of NT pastors was that of being married, as almost all the apostles were as well, and with celibacy/continence being a gift not all have. (1 Timothy 3:1-2,4-5; (1 Corinthians 7:7)
Nor in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed is the Lord's supper manifest as the source and summit of the Christian life," " (CCC 1324) "the cause of that communion in the divine life," (CCC 1325) and "the work of our redemption is carried out;" (CCC 1364) "the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent)
Instead, apart from mere statements in Acts such as that believers "breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) and Jude's mention of the "feast of charity," the Lord's supper is only described in one epistle to the churches, and
in which it is not the Catholic Eucharist that is described .
"This is MY body" either must either refer to actual bloody human flesh, which manifest physicality John emphasizes in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not physically correspond to the Christ of Scripture, whose body would scientifically test as corporeal flesh. Or it must be understood as metaphorical,
which understanding alone easily conflates with the rest of Scripture
It certainly is not taught as referring to what looked, felt, smelled, behaved and would taste and scientifically test merely as inanimate objects (bread and wine), down to the smallest particle, but which bread and wine had ceased to exist at the "words of consecration, becoming instead “the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood,” "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross" of the Catholic christ. Until that is, the non-existent hosts manifests decay, at which point the Catholic christ no longer exists under the appearance of the non-existent bread or wine.
Neither is there even one nowhere are believers shown praying to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH) or taught to, especially to the
Mary of Catholicism , despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of about 200 prayers, and this being a most basic practice, with there always being plenty of created beings to pray to, and occasions for to do so since the Fall.
And without the Catholic priestly sacerdotal Eucharist and PTCBIH and an exalted demigoddess Mary then you do not have a Mass.
