I don't know.
It does make all the difference. The "longer" version has no such statement of a literal body or blood. It is completely absent. A bit shocking and I'm not sure of a good explanation for this. One would tend to think that the shorter version was the "authentic" version (using hist-crit scholarship methods, which can be suspect). However, why would the longer version, if it was not authentic, not provide the explicit support that the original did? It is a curious little case.
Pretend I'm from Missouri. :-)
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood;
The footnote on this quote says that the bit "and one cup to the unity" is literally "and one cup into the unity" which could be reasonably translated as "and one cup to show the unity." I am admitting up front that this is a reasonable translation and is not from God's lips :)
I am not a scholar of ancient manuscripts, but it does indeed seem a curious case. I don't know that we can deduce anything from the existence of two documents. Maybe one got edited down for space reasons, or excerpting. Maybe one of the versions was tampered with for ideological reasons. I can't say and to presume a shorter version is correct is, well, presumptuous.
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood;
The footnote on this quote says that the bit "and one cup to the unity" is literally "and one cup into the unity" which could be reasonably translated as "and one cup to show the unity." I am admitting up front that this is a reasonable translation and is not from God's lips :)
I don't see a problem with this. Even a transubstantiation-believing Catholic understands that there is immense symbolism involved in the Eucharist, especially in the One Bread, One Cup variety.
Catholics don't eschew the symbolisim of Eucharist held by many, we just believe that and more.
SD