The first thing I noticed is that this came from Saul’s property committee. Not the House committee on Constitution and Canons. This is extremely significant.
Secondly, the memorandum makes the specious argument that the word “whole” used in the abandonment of communion canon is there merely to have abstention votes count as no. The memorandum inserts “at the meeting” into the canon in the same vain without those words actually being there. The only substantive change in 1904 that was intended was to change the word “seat” to “vote” in the House of Bishops. The memorandum acknowledges this, and then proceeds to to take the fact that there would now be a meeting of the House to determine abandonment of communion charges rather than having this action taken by mail or by written action which adds procedural protections for the accused and turn this on its head by dramatically lowering the number of bishops required to consent to deposition for abandonment. It ignores the fact that the 1904 convention was in a process of canonical and constitutional revision, and the phrase was changed to match the Constitution. The phrase “bishops entitled to vote” is a term of art and must be interpreted consistently.
Then again, what else would one expect from a bishop who interprets scripture the way he does. The fact that he interprets law in the same manner comes as no surprise.