HE USCCB stands for “United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.” It was formerly called the “NCCB” (National Conference of Catholic Bishops). What is currently their “Committee on Divine Worship” had various nomenclature throughout the years, including “BCLA” (Bishop’s Commission on the Liturgical Apostolate) and “BCL” (Bishops Committee on the Liturgy). The principal books of music for the Eucharist were recently confirmed by the USCCB.1
* PDF • “Principal Music Books for the Eucharist”
—Committee on Divine Worship Newsletter • April 2022.
Their “principal music books for the Eucharist” are as follows:
M (1) Graduale Simplex (1975)
M PDF download • 525 Pages
M (2) Ordo Cantus Missae (1988)
M PDF download • 242 Pages
M cross-referenced to 1908 Graduale
M (3) Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ (1998)
M (4) Graduale Romanum (1974)
M PDF download • 928 pages
M (5) Liber Cantualis (1983)
M PDF download • 121 Pages
M (6) Ordo Missae in Cantu (2012)
OME WILL FIND several of their selections peculiar, and I would probably agree. (Although I very much admire the modification the GRADUALE SIMPLEX made to the Litany of the Saints.) I don’t wish to be critical, but is the PASSION really a Eucharistic hymn? Their intent seems to distinguish between ‘official’ liturgical books and ‘private editions’ which consist of material derived from them. If that was their intent, why include both the Ordo Cantus Missae and the 1974 Solesmes Graduale? After all, that 1974 Solesmes book is a compilation from the Ordo Cantus Missae. It’s also a private collection, as page 8 makes clear (“in hac editione privata”). I suspect they didn’t actually mean the Liber Cantualis—I suspect they actually meant “Cantus Selecti” (1957), which is a book specifically for the Holy Eucharist. [By the way, every choirmaster should be aware of this article, where you can freely download: Variae Preces (1892); Cantus Varii (1902); Cantus Varii (1928); Cantus Selecti (1957); and the Liber Cantualis (1978).] Regardless of my quibbles, this USCCB declaration is a wonderful step forward, and serious church musicians will applaud it.
Better Choices? • The Parish Book of Chant (CMAA, 2012) would have been a far better choice than the Liber Cantualis (a minuscule compilation with zero original material). Furthermore, the USCCB should have included the Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal, which contains tons and tons of Eucharistic hymns—far more than any other Catholic hymnal (and it’s not even close). Consider #814. Or what about #465, which is the oldest known Latin Eucharistic hymn? Or what about #342, a Eucharistic hymn by Saint Robert Southwell? Or what about #868, which is filled to the brim with beautiful paradoxes about the Incarnation of JESUS CHRIST? And how can we forget #144, that ancient hymn to the Blessed Sacrament with a stunning translation by Monsignor Knox? And how can we pass over #024, one of the most ancient Eucharistic hymns we possess? While it’s true that #668 is not Eucharistic in a ‘strict’ sense, it was restored to the Divine Office following Vatican II. And #36 is loved by most Catholics in the United States (for good reason). A real “crowd pleaser” in terms of the melody would be #39. Many of the hymns in the Brébeuf hymn book were written by saints; for example, #786 was written by Saint Philip Howard (d. 1595) shortly before his martyrdom. It would be difficult to find a more fitting hymn to the Most Holy Eucharist than #475. I could go on and on.
Example from Hong Kong • A very famous Eucharistic hymn is “O Salutáris Hóstia,” the last two stanzas of Verbum Supernum (by Saint Thomas Aquinas). The Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal contains numerous settings, including #524. Recently, we were sent this lovely recording from HONG KONG, by Vox Antiqua, an inspiring Catholic choir you can follow on Facebook.
1 Much commentary could be written about the actions of the USCCB over the last 57 years. The best summary would probably be: “Only time will tell where all this goes.” In other words, much damage has been done by the USCCB since the 1960s, because—alongside many other national conferences—after Vatican II, they usurped (“arrogated to themselves”) authority over the sacred liturgy that really belonged to each diocesan bishop. Obviously, I will not repeat here what we have spent years documenting. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen what will happen to the catastrophic USCCB policy of “tacit” approval which has done such harm since the 1970s, and confirmed in writing by Monsignor Richard B. Hilgartner on 20 November 2012. Moreover, the way the USCCB has enforced their own rules (since the 1970s) vis-à-vis which “optional” texts must be included by publishers has been—to be frank—unjust, discriminatory, and shameful. For example, in spite of the long-standing rules of the USCCB, no publisher I’m aware of has ever been forced to include the options from the GRADUALE SIMPLEX. Please notice I’m not telling you what I think of the GRADUALE SIMPLEX, whether I like it or hate it. I’m merely pointing out the inequitable conduct of the USCCB over the last 57 years. Let’s pray that better times are on the horizon! From what I understand, Father Andrew V. Menke (currently serving as executive director of the USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship) is trying desperately to clean up the sundry messes left for him by his predecessors.
