You cannot be more wrong. Your account of the first century is revisionist history to suit Protestant bias. The Didache, by the way, has a description of a Mass that is remarkably similar to the Mass today. That one source refutes your assertions about the Mass.
It is YOU who are wrong, utterly ignoring that I said "NT church" not that which developed after the death of the apostles, and thus I challenge you to find the Catholic distinctives
I listed as missing in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed and practiced, from Acts to Revelation.
It is no surprise that you appeal to the
Didache, yet even this does not manifestly describes the distinctive Catholic Eucharist Mass. First, it "forgot" to mention Catholic priests as the persons that alone can conduct the Lord's supper and effect the purported metaphysical changes in the elements, being a separate class of sacerdotal clergy
that are called by the distinctive name for such ("hiereus"), but which the Holy Spirit never used for NT clergy.
And which is their primary active function, but which is utterly absent in the life of the NT church. The Didache calls prophets "high priests" in type, and to "permit the Prophets to give thanks as much as [in what words] they wish.," in contrast to restrictions placed on others, but that such were typically traveling preachers, and a gathering may not have one present, and it is not taught that they must be the one's conducting the Lord's supper. .
In addition, besides the cup coming first in the Didache, it indicates that the Lord's supper was an actual meal (But after you are satisfied with food, thus give thanks), as in Scripture, not a mere piece of bread and sip of wine. ("Now after being filled, give thanks after this manner.."
Moreover, just where is the "Real Presence" (which apparently was originally an Anglican term) offered as a sacrifice in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead, as distinctive to other understandings of the Lord's supper as being spiritual food and drink? The Didache does not even repeat the "words of consecration" or mention "real flesh" as being consumed, but only refers to it as a holy sacrifice that is "spiritual food and drink," and not with such languages as "the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally."
(Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
For the Didache says, " "Thou, O, Almighty Sovereign, didst make all things for Thy Name's sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Servant."
Dedicating the Lord's supper to remembering/showing the Lord's death is not the same thing as priests actually offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins. And as 1 Corinthians 10 teaches, pagans had fellowship with the object of their dedicatory=sacrificial feasts, but which was not by actually consuming the flesh and blood of the objects of their worship.
"But I
say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)
Thus for "a description of a Mass that is remarkably similar to the Mass today," there is hardly anything that is a distinct description of the Mass, but one that that could by used by Anglicans and Lutherans.
That said, the Didache is not qualified to be determinitive of doctrine and of what the NT church believed, since it is an uninspired composite work, dated from the late 1st to the late 2nd century, and contains strange teachings as well as adding to and contradicting Scripture nor being wholly consistent with Catholicism.
In chapter 1, it purports to quote Scripture but changes the Lord's positive statement, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets," (Matthew 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31) into a negative, "and all things whatsoever thou wouldst not have done to thee, neither do thou to another." Which form is what is typically seen in pagan literature. The positive is proactive, while the negative is prone to being understood as only avoiding doing things.
Next it again purports to quote Scripture, "and fast for those that persecute you," but which is not what the Lord's said, but "pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you," (Matthew 5:44) and thus it misquotes the Lord.
It next seems to interprets "Abstain from fleshly and bodily [worldly] lusts. If any one give thee a blow on the right cheek turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect," but which also was not what the Lord said, who exhorts believers to be/act perfect as their heavenly Father is (Matthew 5:48) by obedience to the beatitudes overall.
Next it invokes Luke 12:59 in teaching that that of one receives alms that "has not need shall give account, why he received and for what purpose, and coming into distress he shall be strictly examined concerning his deeds, and he shall not come out thence till he have paid the last farthing, But concerning this also it hath been said, "Let thine alms sweat (drop like sweat) into thy hands till thou know to whom thou shouldst give." However this latter quote is another one which is nowhere found in Scripture.
In Chapter 4, it teaches " If thou hast [anything], thou shalt give with thy hands a ransom for thy sins," but which is contrary to Christ being the only ransom for sins. While in one sense it can be said that "charity shall cover the multitude of sins," (1 Peter 4:8) and repentance/forgiveness can require restitution, the only ransom is the sinless shed blood of Christ, "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)
Moreover, despite its propensity (more to follow) to add to the word of God, it exhorts, "Thou shalt not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but thou shalt keep what thou hast received, neither adding [thereto] nor taking away [therefrom]." (4:13)
Next, in chapter 7 it teaches that It teaches "before Baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can; but thou shalt command the baptized to fast for one or two days before.," which may be good advice but which is not what we see in Scripture, in which baptisms immediately followed the hearing and believing of the gospel, (Acts 2:38; 8:12,13,36,37; 10:43-47; 19:1-6) and only Paul is said to have fasted before being baptized. (Acts 9:9; 22:16)
In addition, it teaches that the mode of baptism is to be in in living (running) cold (preferably) water, or in the absence of such, "pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," while in Scripture baptism is by immersion, with nothing said about temperature or needing flowing water, nor of pouring water three times, though in the absence of water I suppose even spit might suffice as fulfilling the intent.
Next, in chapter 8 it teaches "Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but ye shall fast on the fourth day, and the preparation day (Friday).," which leads to ecclesiastical legalism. In Scripture there is no rule on how often to fast or when, but only "when," and that not being like the hypocrites is, "when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly." (Matthew 6:16-18)
In chapter 8 it also teaches that "Pray thus thrice a day" the Lord's prayer, yet which is not taught in Scripture as a ritual prayer, but a model for prayer: "After this manner therefore pray ye" Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name... (Matthew 6:9) and "when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen
do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." (Matthew 6:7)
While Daniel prayed 3 times toward Jerusalem, nowhere is it taught that one prayer, including the Lord's prayer, is to be prayed 3 times a day, and which leads to ecclesiastical legalism. But thus does the Didache add to the word of God.
Next, in chapter 11 it states "Now with regard to the Apostles and Prophets, according to the decree (command) of the gospel, so do ye," yet it asserts,
"Let every Apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord But he shall not remain [longer than] one day; and, if need be, another [day] also; but if he remain three [days] he is a false prophet" which also is nowhere taught in Scripture, and which records that apostles "abode long time with the disciples." (Acts 14:28) "
Then also in chapter 11 we have another reference to Scripture, that while a prophet who asks for money or who otherwise does not manifest the behavior of the Lord is a false prophets, yet it warns, "And every prophet who speaks in the spirit ye shall not try or prove; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven." However, besides contextually the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31) being that of hard hearted attribution of the Lord's miracles to the devil and the like in resisting the Spirit's conviction, believers are to test prophets, "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
In chapter 12, we have another adding example of legalistic teaching not seen in the word of God, teaching according to one translation used by Catholics,,
"If he who comes is a traveller, help him as much as you can, but he shall not remain with you more than two days, or, if need be, three." The one I am using by Schaff, states "longer than two or three days, unless there be necessity." But nowhere is fasting twice a week on certain days or praying thrice daily the same prayer or restricting hospitality to 2 or 3 days taught as commanded by God.
Finally in chapter 16 we have a the common Catholic misconception:
"But be frequently gathered together seeking the things which are profitable for your souls, for the whole time of your faith shall not profit you except ye be found perfect at the last time."
Which, as meaning believers must attain to absolute perfection of character either here or in Purgatory (though the Didache nowhere infers the latter, but that perfection must be attained in this life) is not what Scripture teaches, in which admittedly imperfect Paul (Philippians 3:12) expressed his desire to depart, and to be with Christ, (Philippians 1:23) as would all the church if the Lord returned in their lifetime, (
1 Corinthians 15:51ff; 1 Thessalonians 4:17) and indeed, wherever the NT manifestly speaks of the next reality for believers immediately after this life, it is with the Lord. (
Luke 23:43 [cf.
2 Corinthians 12:4;
Revelation 2:7];
Philippians 1:23;
2 Corinthians 5:8 ["we"]).
For believers are washed, sanctified and justified, (
1 Corinthians 6:11) and accepted in the Beloved, and made to sit with Him in Heaven as souls saved by grace, not works, which is where their citizenship is, and by His sinless shed blood have access with boldness into the holy of holies.
And with the next transformative event being the resurrection. (Ephesians. 1:6; 2:6, 8,9;
Philippians 3:20,21;
Hebrews 10:19) and that the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life is that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (
1 Corinthians 4:5;
2 Timothy. 4:1,
8;
Revelation 11:18;
Matthew 25:31-46;
1 Peter 1:7;
5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (
1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
"The First century also had Bishops, priests, and deacons. These were in Holy Orders. Any thought otherwise is revisionist bias.
Wrong again, and revisionist bias, for aside from deacons, for in the NT, Bishops/episkopos and elders/presbuteros referred to those in one office, the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain
elders [
presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a
bishop [
episkopos] must be blameless...” (
Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the
elders of the church," (
Acts 20:17) who are said to be
episkopos in v. 28.
Elders are also what were ordained for every church in
Acts 14:23, and
bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in
Phil. 1:1.
Even Jerome (347-420) admits,
“
The presbyter is the same as the bishop,...If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age,...it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters,
it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).
"Women and the Priesthood
The Sacrifice of the Mass
Bishop, Priest, and Deacon
Peter and the Papacy (the reason I resigned as a Baptist clergy and joined the Catholic Church)
Real Meaning of "Catholic" According to Church Fathers""
The NT church is nowhere shown looking to Peter as the first in a line of infallible Popes reigning supreme over all the churches from Rome, and Peter is only mentioned in two of Paul's 13 epistles (nor in Revelation's letters), and is even utterly absent from the 34 people he names in his latter to the church at Rome, and nowhere commands particular obedience to Peter.
Unlike you, I was both raised devout RC and later became an active serving member of the RCC for years, after (by God's grace) becoming manifestly born again, and know the profound difference btwn an institutionalized form of Christianity and the transformative effects of true regeneration, in contrast to being seduced to join a church whose distinctives are simply not seen in the only wholly inspired and substantive record of the NT church.