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.
As Christians, we are called to oppose heresies and promote and defend The Gospel of Grace. Catholicism is 'another gospel' and as such utilizes rituals and oaths that are not Christian and are in some cases drawn from pagan rites incorporated into their rituals and dates.
I have been posting information on the conflict between the disciple of John (Polycar), and the bishops in Rome (chiefly Anicetus, but Marcion was thriving under Anicetus) who changed the day of the Lords Table to always be on the Sunday date of the pagan rites, from the Passover Seder Jesus celebrated on Nisan 14.
The bodies of believers across Asian Minor were celebrating The Passover as the Lord's Table, always on Nisan 14. Rome changed that, under stern objection from Polycarp who left Rome in disgust and was murdered a year later (I think in Smyrna, being burned alive since the games had wound down and there was not time to have the animals kill him in the arena).
Invalidating contextual exegesis that refutes Rome by desperately ascribing it to being the result of knee-jerking bias (rather than actually engaging with the argument) is what is invalid, as the besides mind-reading of causal motive, the argument stands upon its own merits. And both the immediate context of 1 Co. 11:19-34 as well as the broader context of the NT and that of all Scripture is what soundly supports the metaphorical understanding and disallows the literalistic neoPlatonic imagination of Rome. And which much relies on restricting the gospel accounts of the LS to the immediate context, while we will not even her distinctive sacerdotal priesthood.
But for your information, my conclusion is not determined by bias against Rome, but rather that which Scripture warrants, as it does the beliefs we both concur on. And which objectively ascertaining of Truth i am free to engage in, as i am not beholden to support any one church, but am to go wherever the Truth leads. As in a jury, one can suspend his convictions in order to weigh the merits of a case, or at least not allow his convictions to overrule what the evidence warrants. And thus i disagree on some things most others here hold to, such as the rapture or OSAS.
In contrast, it is faithful RCs who are not to seek to ascertain the veracity of RC official binding teaching by objectively examining the Scriptures and evidence, as to do so would be to act as evangelicals, and not trust the claims of Rome as to her ensured veracity, and thus render the assent she requires.