In the former, I was particularly struck by the kind of summary profession of faith of Archbishop Smith beginning part way through the third paragraph and ending part way through the fourth. And what I couldn't really make out in the latter was the parallel reference to the "spirit" and the "documents" of the Council, the first being un-defined and it then not being clear that it is the latter that are definitive as the expression of the ecclesial experience of the Council. The profession of faith contained in the former, which could be seen as a proposed content for the primary proclamation of the Gospel, also appears more invigorating than the proposal for evangelistion contained at the end of the latter (though this clearly has merit, and is full of echoes for those with experience in the Legion fo Mary).
Archbishop Smith's account of the teaching on the "new people of God" and "co-responsibility" of the laity is also more coherent than Bishop McMahon's reference to
One of the predominant images was that of the ‘People of God’ having an inclusive character based on baptism.which appears, in comparison, to be selective and removed from its Biblical and ecclesial context.
And there is also Bishop Egan's Pastoral Letter, here, which is different again in its character, seeming more practical and immediately pastoral in its proposals.