How do Protestants deal with evidence the early church celebrated mass as a literal sacrifice of Christ?

According to the book "The Latin Mass Explained ", all of the ancient Christian churches that exist today celebrate the mass as a literal sacrifice of Christ, indicating this was the core ritual that they all shared, even though they went their separate theological ways. The Catholic mass itself is based on the situation of the early church in Rome, since the name is from the dismissal of non-Catholics before the sacrifice of the Eucharist, so this indicates the Catholic mass has been unchanged in its essential function as a sacrifice since the earliest days of the Christians in Rome. Here is a good article showing this is what the Catholic church believes, and a run down of evidence from church fathers that this was the early belief as well. Protestantism often claims to be true to proto-Christianity, what the earliest Christians believed, and in doing so has rejected all the man made rituals built up around this essential seed of the Christian life. Yet, Protestantism, as a whole, seems to have rejected the core function of the mass (as evidenced by this question ), which seems to be consistent with our best evidence as to the early purpose of the mass. So, this is confusing to me, since this suggests that Protestantism is not holding to the core ritual of the earliest form of Christianity. How do Protestants address this apparent discrepancy between the stated intent of Protestantism vs. what the evidence seems to suggest? UPDATE: Many see this question as similar to other questions asking about the Protestant take on transubstantiatio/real presence. This question is different, since while some Protestant groups (Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican) accept a doctrine similar to transubstantiation, no Protestant groups think the eucharist/communion is a literal sacrifice. However, based on the two lines of evidence above, that all ancient churches we know of viewed the eucharist as a literal sacrifice of Christ, and there are many writings of the early church fathers saying the same thing, then it is quite unexpected that no Protestant groups hold a similar view. Since the basis of Protestantism is rejecting man made rituals to return to original Christianity, it is surprising that all Protestants reject what appears to be a doctrine that all ancient churches considered the central purpose of their religious liturgy. I'm curious how Protestants deal with this discrepancy, since I've never heard anyone address it (I've heard many address the transubstantiation question). CLARIFICATION: This question isn't about the Catholic church. I just cite it as a source of evidence I'm most familiar with. However, the issue is broader than the Catholic church. It includes churches that think the Catholic church is heretical, and visa versa. It includes churches that respect the Catholic church, and churches that don't. The weird thing, which my question is about, is that all these ancient churches have the same thing in common, which is the eucharist as a literal sacrifice of Christ, suggesting this aspect is central to original Christianity.