No. The nature of the elements was never described as being an issue, nor in Pauline theology is the nature of such ever expounded upon, which it would be if understanding it was important as a means of grace for the body, let alone if having Cath importance, and in which even individual "communion" (an oxymoron) is critical if not able to make it to "Mass."
Instead, it is the hearing of the word of God that is said to "nourish" believers (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up," (Acts 20:32) with Peter also teaching that the sincere milk of the word is what one grows by, (1Pt. 2:2) and which Paul fed the Corinthians with, and lamenting that believers were not yet ready for "meat," (1Co. 3:2). and with the writer of Hebrews exhorting receiving the "meat" of the word. (Heb. 5:13-6:2) And which Scripture being the wholly inspired, assured transcendent substantive body of Truth, which instrumentally is used to make one "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16,17) Glory to God, and what the oral preaching of the word is subject to testing by. (Acts 17:11)
And with the preaching of it (and prayer) being the primary ordained function of NT pastors, (Acts 6:4; 2Tim. 4:2) not dispensing anything which was physically eaten, which nowhere in Scripture provided spiritual life.
AND which Jesus Himself told the true disicples regarding the ‘profitting’ and Peter affirmed that he understood with his proclamation that it is Jesus Who has the Words of Life.
A theology which is based on an allergy to something (in your case, the Catholic/Orthodox idea of Mass) can itself be tendentious in the wrong direction. I’d look for all meanings of body that make sense in the context rather than knee jerking against one because somebody misused it for something else.
The blood can be implied in the body just like the resurrection can be implied in the cross.
Willfully reject the gift of God’s sacrifice and you will end up with the devil instead. Don’t ever make your theologies bigger than what God has actually done.