The serious answer is that catechesis has become so bad that most Catholics don't even know, or care, what is or isn't "heretical".

The all or nothing attitude from many is wearying. I welcome the document.

A link contained in an earlier post to this thread led to an article indicating that the USCCB Committee reviewed 1000 hymns/songs for their report. Where might I find that list of titles and their composers? Is there a source that gives the criteria the committee used to create that particular subset of music for review? The diocese has been addressing this issue for some years now but it has been a challenge to eliminate these songs from the repertoire of music we use at Mass. I would like to present my parish liturgy and music planning committees with some background rather than just the report.

The Bishops are going OTT! "Lord of the dance" heretical! The "Holy People" obviously means the scribes, pharisees, and the ruler of the synagogue who objected to Jesus healing on a sabbath.
In "All Are Welcome" they object to "water, wine and wheat". "The image of the Eucharist is of an ordinary banquet where one drinks water and wine and eats wheat bread. Further, water is not on the same level as bread and wine as matter for the Eucharist".
Who thought it was? You can interpret this as baptism followed by Eucharist.
The bishops pay lip service to poetic license, but for the life of me I cannot see why they allow "bread" for the consecrated bread, but object to "wine" for the consecrated wine.

I believe she meant Over-The-Top (I had to google it)

Bread is scriptural (John 6), but I think it's important to use qualifiers when speaking of the Eucharist as bread in hymns: living bread, bread from/of heaven, angels' bread, bread of life...

Even so istm that in our imperfect catechetical situation, the word is normally best avoided.

I'm so glad to see the doctrinal content of hymns being supervised by the bishops!

At 'Pray Tell' there is a link to a review by Michael Joncas: https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2021/04/28/michael-joncas-evaluates-an-aid-for-evaluating-hymn-lyrics/

Fr. Joncas' absurd insertion of "sic" multiple times in this footnote quoting the catechism gives away his game:

21. “By calling God ‘Father,’ the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he [sic] is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his [sic] children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents who are in a way the first representatives of God for man [sic] . . . We ought to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He [sic] is neither man nor woman: he [sic] is God. He [sic] . . . transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard.” CCC, #239.

Bottom line is that Fr. Joncas and everyone at PrayTellBlog don't want traditional, precise and clear language used in liturgy nor in hymns because traditional, precise and clear language obstruct their squishy modernist wishes to redefine Catholic faith through the back door of making the language of prayer ambiguous.

For example, consider the first stanza of this new song lyric by Sarah Hart, who is one of OCP's most celebrated "artists":

THE HOUSE THAT LOVE IS BUILDING
In the house that Love is building,
There is room enough for all,
Endless welcome in her rafters,
Mercy singing through her walls.
Here is refuge for all people
From every tribe and tongue.
In the house that Love is building
There is room for everyone.

Full text here:
https://www.ocp.org/en-us/blog/entry/the-house-that-love-is-building

In the first place, "Love" capitalized seems to be a reference to God. But the Love in the lyric is referred to with the pronoun "she", giving it a female character, and nowhere must it be concluded that "Love" means "God". The ambiguities in that song make it absolutely unfit for use in a Catholic setting, and it is most especially unsuitable to be sung at Mass.

Based on his article, Joncas could rush to defend Hart's lyric by saying that one need not ascribe a false interpretation to the lyric because, since the First Letter of John says that God is love, using "Love" as a name for God is acceptable. And the use of feminine pronouns to refer to "Love" is justified because in Latin the word "love" has a feminine gender. Oh, they can come up with all kinds of weaselly excuses to get the camel's nose in the tent.

If ambiguous language such as that is allowed to be sung at Catholic worship, it undermines Catholic faith in the minds of those who hear and sing those lyrics.

That's the concern of the committee that wrote the USCCB statement, and it's a valid concern because too many modern hymn texts have been written by people who lack adequate knowledge and understanding of Catholic faith to adequately give poetic, lyric expression to elements of Catholic faith. They write what they feel or what makes them feel good. Or the lyrics have been written by people who deliberately seek to undermine or change what Catholics believe through the use of ambiguous language.

I won't say "everyone" at East Germany PTB but yes, point taken.

Ye gods! what awful poetry. I prefer my doggerel more virile.

Ghmus,

So long as it's just a first step, it's a huge step forward. A previous effort to establish a national Catholic repertoire for a national hymnal left the work in the hands of the very people who had caused the train wreck in the first place. It was akin to asking McCarrick to police sexual predators or Arturo Sosa to police heretics.

True that over 20% of Alleluia verses in the Graduale Synopticum are non biblical. But for the other chants it is below 6%. And they seem to fall into two distinct groups: saints who have some particular reference to their activities, and major ancient festivals. Presumably for the latter there was a corpus of established texts before the 7th century systematisers started work.
The principle of adding new texts only from biblical sources still seems a good one, apart from specific saints.

That's brilliant! From now on I'll have to have my choir sing:

"And He [sic] will raise you up, on Eagle's wings."

But we only sing that song at funerals, and only when it's requested, which is happening less frequently.

I don't usually agree with what the PrayTellBlog publishes, but this article is very good:
https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2021/06/07/continuing-the-conversation-the-usccbs-guidance-on-hymn-texts/