Of course, it wasn't called a "Mass." That's just one name for it. But they definitely had liturgy, which is the more "accurate," in a sense, name for it. You're argument is like those who don't believe in the Holy Trinity just because the term isn't in Scripture.
The attempt to make the "mass" biblical by pulling scripture out of context will only please that already believe it
Well, you're right except about the "out of context" part. For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
Scripture please
There was no priesthood, no altars. The Lords table was not considered a sacrifice in the early church, so there were no need for those things that one needs for a sacrifice.
"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died.
The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests.
Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."
Catholic Customs & Traditions, Greg Dues (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). pg166
No priesthood, no sacrifice, no "liturgy" (unless one calls singing liturgy), no altar... The Catholic mass, and system is found NO WHERE in the NT church