So, your view of Mass being unscriptual is that you interpret the bible differently from the Catholic Church. And, upon this, you are also stating the the Catholic Church is guilty of hypocrisy.
1. You either do not know the meaning of hypocrisy, which, like lying involves knowingly deceiving, hypocrisy involves knowingly assuming a facade or false pretense to look virtuous. Therefore, you are simply stating that the Catholic Church has the "wrong interpretation" and is therefore acting hypocritically.
2. You do know the meaning of hypocrisy and you think the interpretations of the scripture are not good-faith interpretations. However, if the Church knew they were not good-faith interpretations, then why select them and preserve them as one of their canonical texts? Such a thought is absurd.
Last, the Catholic Church does not have a brutal history of keeping scripture from the common man. Prior to Gutenberg, books were copied by hand. Monks spent entire lifetimes doing nothing but copying scripture. This was incredibly laborious. Further, binding was incredibly expensive, as well. Thus, finished products were few and went to the wealthy (who, surprise surprise, were also some of the few who knew how to read). Medieval Catholic Cathedrals had three altars, a main altar and two side altars. At the main altar, everything went on in Latin. At the side altars, the Mass took place in the vernacular and the homilies were used to instruct the common man in the scripture; funny way of keeping scripture from the common man, right? Read it to him in a language he can understand...
The Catholic Church certainly fought against mass reproduction of vernacular translations of the bible not because the Church was hell-bent on keeping the bible from the common man, but because the Church did not have oversight on the translators. Thus, the Church fought to keep poor or interested translations from the common man. The Catholic Church, however, had vernacular translations of the bible as early as the fourth century (moving from Greek to Latin is moving to a vernacular translation). The Church had translations in French and German before the eleventh century; and, seeing that the English were speaking French, German, and Anglo-Saxon in the middle ages, these vernacular translations often sufficed so that Priests could preach in the vernacular to their congregations in England.