OK I didn't know they used the term "Mass, " but Luther rejected the idea of transubstantiation for consubstantiation so it isn't the same thing, and the vast majority of Protestant churches do not use the term "Mass.".
The point, dear dear Theodoric, is that the word "Mass" usually refers to the Catholic Mass, and I hadn'e known before that some Protestant churches also use that term, but since they do it has to be said that it is not the same "Mass" that the Reformers objected to. That is, it is misleading to say that Protestant churches ALSO have the Mass because it is not the same Mass.
As I said I’ve observed both and there are no major differences. The big differences - including the bit about “Jesus being sacrificed over and over again” are just ideas about what it means. (And I will point out that I had to research that myself because you wouldn’t or couldn’t explain it)
So there is no real objection to the Catholic mass as such. The objection is to Catholic ideas about it.
Yes, for you that is apparently trivial, but for Christians doctrine is of utmost importance. Catholic doctrine also condemnzs the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone, among a long iist of other anathemas against Protestantism. This is doctrine, it's all-important.
It’s a matter of truth. If you say that you object to the Catholic mass when you mean that you object to Catholic ideas about mass you are not telling the truth. and I would say that the difference between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation is trivial. And from a truly Christian perspective it would be, too.
Protestant Mass is not Catholic Mass, get it straight
What am I "wrong" about? You think you can rewrite history or what? I'm simply trying to get across the position of the Protestant Reformation. Maybe I'm not doing the best job of that but you certainly cannot rewrite what the Reformation actually said and churches that follow the Reformers believe and do. What's your point? It's silly.