From Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit

[Chatter163]

The answer is that there was no one magical point; it came about gradually from the turn of the last century, and climaxed with the massive changes of the Vatican II era, when so many things seemed to be changing, that the new translation of the Mass made this just one more such change–even though it had been years in coming. Many of the missals from the middle and late fifties were already using Holy Spirit, but certainly not all.

 

[patrick457]

The answer is that there was no one magical point; it came about gradually from the turn of the last century, and climaxed with the massive changes of the Vatican II era, when so many things seemed to be changing, that the new translation of the Mass made this just one more such change–even though it had been years in coming. Many of the missals from the middle and late fifties were already using Holy Spirit, but certainly not all.

Not only that: in 1901 the American Standard Version already translated the name as Holy Spirit, as had the Revised Version of 1881-1885 upon which it was based. Almost all modern English translations have followed suit, which probably explains the spread of the usage ‘Holy Spirit’.

 

[patrick457]

That being said, ‘Holy Ghost’ does have unfortunate connotations, as others pointed out:

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4941/ac1302.jpg

Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them.

 

[JReducation]

We can see that both terms were used in English just by looking at some of the older hymns that were translated, mostly from the German. I believe that “Come Holy Ghost” uses both words in the hymn itself. “All Hail, Adored Trinity” has “spirit” in the first verse and “ghost” in the last. It looks like we’ve had both since we began to translate prayers and hymns into English. The problem seems to exist only in English and the Eastern European languages.

The real issue is that human language cannot properly capture the third person of the Trinity. The first and second person are easier: father and son.

In the ancient scriptures the Jews refer to the “wind” of God hovering in the Book of Genesis. Even the Jews have translated that to the “spirit” in the English. In Judaism, it was always understood that the wind in Genesis was not the same as the wind on a stormy day, because the universe had not yet been created. The meaning was that of a formless life. It was definitely a life-form or a living being, not a ghost. I believe that’s why Judaism stayed away from the word ghost.

Our people did have a word for fantasms. We find it used in the Gospels when the Apostles are afraid upon seeing Jesus after the resurrection.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

The real issue is that human language cannot properly capture the third person of the Trinity. The first and second person are easier: father and son.

One would think. But I worked for a boss who had a sign on her desk “Confide in God; She will provide.” Yuk. And she’s Christian. I wasn’t in any position to talk about Father and Son.

 

[JReducation]

One would think. But I worked for a boss who had a sign on her desk “Confide in God; She will provide.” Yuk. And she’s Christian. I wasn’t in any position to talk about Father and Son.

Those can often be tongue in cheek remarks. I find very few of them humorous. Most of them are silly or agenda driven.

Even in the ancient languages, my people always referred to God in the masculine. Granted, we don’t have a neutral in our ancient languages. And our ancestors did not write the OT in the same language. There were many variations. To this day, Hebrew is not the same Hebrew spoken 2,000 years ago. The Semitic languages were very similar, but they did have their differences. None of the ones in the OT ever refer to YHWH, Elohim or Addonai in the feminine. That is not to say that they believed God had a physical gender. It is what we call a gender identity. In other words, it’s not biological; but it certainly was paternal. That is how God revealed himself. Even in Islam, which is the youngest of the monotheistic faiths, God is acknowledged as a Father, not a mother or a gender neutral.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rben20]

Isn’t it ironic then that the traditional crowd say Ghost even though Holy Spirit adheres to the Latin more accurately?

 

[roveau]

English, Dutch and German are cousin languages and for spirit (in the modern sence) the word is ghost, geest and geist respectively. When the King James bible was written the proper English word for spirit was ghost … just as the related word in Dutch and German remain geest and geist. The origin of the word dates well before the time of the settlement of parts of Britain by the Saxons because they brought the word to Britain.

In Dutch if you see a ghostly apparition it is called a spook (pronounced like spowk) not a geest. Unfortunately in English ghost meant both spook and spirit.

If you see that classic movie about Fatima and if you see the Sound of Music, they still say ‘Holy Ghost’ when they pray. I think the change occurred during the 1970s here in Australia anyway - it was a gradual thing.

I still use both Ghost and Spirit.

 

[JReducation]

Isn’t it ironic then that the traditional crowd say Ghost even though Holy Spirit adheres to the Latin more accurately?

That’s the English speaking Traditionalist. In other languages, the term is Holy Spirit. You would never hear ghost used in French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese or Rumanian. Those languages adhere more closely to their Latin roots.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

English, Dutch and German are cousin languages and for spirit (in the modern sence) the word is ghost, geest and geist respectively. When the King James bible was written the proper English word for spirit was ghost … just as the related word in Dutch and German remain geest and geist. The origin of the word dates well before the time of the settlement of parts of Britain by the Saxons because they brought the word to Britain.

In Dutch if you see a ghostly apparition it is called a spook (pronounced like spowk) not a geest. Unfortunately in English ghost meant both spook and spirit.

If you see that classic movie about Fatima and if you see the Sound of Music, they still say ‘Holy Ghost’ when they pray. I think the change occurred during the 1970s here in Australia anyway - it was a gradual thing.

I still use both Ghost and Spirit.

The usage of either ghost or spirit has nothing to do with theology. It has to do with linguistics. I wish people would not make a theological issue out of that which is not. I heard a woman say that she would rather not pray with others if she had to say “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” She claimed that it was immoral.

That’s going too far.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rben20]

The usage of either ghost or spirit has nothing to do with theology. It has to do with linguistics. I wish people would not make a theological issue out of that which is not. I heard a woman say that she would rather not pray with others if she had to say “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” She claimed that it was immoral.

That’s going too far.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

The usage of either ghost or spirit has nothing to do with theology. It has to do with linguistics. I wish people would not make a theological issue out of that which is not.

Exactly. Otherwise all we’re doing is discussing politically correct English theology as opposed to Church theology. In other words, which English word fits best today as tomorrow that will change again. That’s why a new English Bible comes along every few years. (BTW, did we remove the word “gay” from all joyous occasions in the Bibles yet?)

I heard a woman say that she would rather not pray with others if she had to say “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” She claimed that it was immoral.

Maybe she was thinking of drinking it? Like holy Bourbon?

Even the word “immoral” has changed its meaning, however. It’s like we say “heresy” for everything we disagree with, and a lot take exception with that. It might have been more accurate to say “vulgar” although today that too has negative implications.

 

[City_Smurf]

This is why Latin is the best ! It isn’t evolving any longer !

 

[Wesley7]

Personally, I prefer Holy Ghost . . .

 

[JReducation]

This is why Latin is the best ! It isn’t evolving any longer !

Even that is not a practical solution. It is true that Latin is no longer an evolving language. But everything that is written in Latin has to be translated into different languages. You’re always going to run into the problem of compatibility.

I’ll give you a simple example from my own experience. Our Holy Father wrote a rule in Latin. However, there was a major problem with it. We have over 1.7 million Franciscans in 114 countries and over 40 languages. How many of these people speak Latin fluently? How many of them understand what Francis meant?

To understand what he meant, we had to go back and reread the original draft in 13th century Italian, then read Brother Leo’s translation into Latin. It turned out that while he was dictating it, he dictated it in Italian, thinking in French and the secretary was translating. He thought in French, hence his nickname, Francesco. He would often write things for the brothers, in French and someone would come along and rewrite it in Latin so as to be able to diseminate it around the order. Each language group would retranslate to their own language.

As a result . . . within 100 years of his death, there were at least 15 understandings of his rule and testament. Everyone was holding the same Latin version in their hand, but the author did not speak fluent Latin. It was the scribe who spoke fluent Latin. The scribe wrote it so that it would flow, where the author dictated it as the Spirit revealed it to him.

When Vatican II came along and said, “Go back to your roots and do as your founder said,” guess where we had to go? Back to Medieval Provencal and Italian, not Latin. The Latin rendition was a very poetic and theologically nuanced version. The original was much harsher in some places and much more lenient in others. To the mind of Brother Leo, this would not fit the usual Latin balance, so he chose his words very carefully to present a version of the rule that was a literary masterpiece. Bonaventure had to come along and try to settle the differences in interpretations.

This still happens today. Every Church document is written either in Latin or in a European language and then translated into Latin. In those cases where you write in another language and then translate into Latin, then you retranslated into other languages, you have small problems with word usages.

Even if you do not actually write a translated version of a document, but read it in Latin, you’re reading it with you particular cultural perspective. If you’re German and you read Spiritus in Latin, you’re thinking geist or gast. While a Spanish speaker is thinking Spirit. To the Spanish speaker, ghost is a horrible word to use.

Do you see what I’m saying here? We don’t leave behind our culture and meanings when we read another language. That goes with us where ever we go.

It’s not easy dealing with a family that speaks so many languages and has such a diversity of cultures. We have to muddle along as best we can and ask for God’s help that we are as close as possible. I believe that He does help.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Even that is not a practical solution. It is true that Latin is no longer an evolving language. But everything that is written in Latin has to be translated into different languages. You’re always going to run into the problem of compatibility.

Yes but as the Italians say, “Traduttore, tradittore” or “Translator, traitor.”

There are well-meaning people out there who act as translators. And many of them are good people as well. But as their audience always feels that any translation is better than no translation, they can be easily deceived, and then realize later they should have known better and could have tried to interpret it themselves from the context, vocabulary, etc.

Take this hypothetical example. Say there’s an announcement from the Vatican about Benediction or the Rosary. I post on my blog my interpretation that Benediction will now be the new Sacrifice of the Mass. Or we can now substitute the Rosary for the Mass. Eventually I will be caught but probably a whole ton of people will have eaten my story and they’ll probably go on forever thinking they can just say the rosary on Sunday.

As we know mistranslations can have disastrous consequences. We learned that from the “conscience” clause in Progressio Populorum. Had we had the entire thing in context with Humanae Vitae and a lot more skilled translators we might have understood that “conscience” clause a little differently. As it stands many Catholics just took what sounded good to them and ran with it.

It’s not easy dealing with a family that speaks so many languages and has such a diversity of cultures. We have to muddle along as best we can and ask for God’s help that we are as close as possible. I believe that He does help.

Yes but that’ll be like reversing the Tower of Babel mindset. However, we do have the beautiful encyclical from Blessed John XXIII “Veterum Sapientia” to draw upon for starters. Not to mention the wonderful work that Cardinal Arinze is attempting to accomplish in this regard as well.

 

[malphono]

There have been a number of threads in this forum about this very issue. Sorry for repeating myself here, but it seems to me to be on topic for this thread too.

Plenty of folks deride the use of “Holy Ghost” and insist on saying “oh, it’s archaic” and “oh, I don’t believe in ghosts” or “oh, “Spirit” is so much more ‘meaningful’” etc, but that really begs the question. From my perspective, the term “Holy Ghost” has fallen into general (but not total) disuse, as an after-effect of the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II” which basically says anything pre-1965 had to be discarded. frankly I care less: I still use it. (The word “ma’am” (being an English contraction of “madame”) is also rather archaic, yet the Queen still expects to be addressed that way. And although I’ve never been presented to the Queen, I use that one too when speaking formally to women.)

[post=7026090]JReducation[/post] has already given some good information regarding the Hebrew word ruah, and I will add that it is common to Semitic languages in general. As Brother JR has correctly alluded to, the concept of ruah is somewhat alien to non-Semitic languages.

The usual defense of using “Holy Spirit” seems to be that the Greek pneuma translates to “spirit” in English. Yes, but that only really only applies to contemporary spoken English. (I admit I know little Greek, but isn’t that also the root for the English word “lung” which seems to takes us back to Semitic concept of “breath”.)

Various arguments, including the usual horror movie relation and the Caspar thing, etc, are commonly proffered against the expression “Holy Ghost”, but at the same time there are other arguments that go against “spirit” e.g., spirits = liquor, or “that’s the spirit,” etc. Further, the word “spirit” in modern English can also have the exact same connotation as “ghost” insofar as the “spooky” goes: how about “the spirit world” or “spiritualist” etc? Anyway, looking at both, it seems to me to be a draw: both words have alternate meanings in English.

The interesting thing is that the dictionary definition of “ghost” in English really hasn’t changed. It’s first meaning usually shows something like “the seat of life or intelligence; soul” (as in “give up the ghost”). The “spook” definition is second, although I’ll admit in common parlance the positions are reversed. But that is common parlance, and I think the Holy Ghost/Holy spirit isn’t quite so “common” or at least shouldn’t be. Too often, the post-conciliar party line is “let’s make everything common” and there I heartily disagree.

Personally, I prefer “Holy Ghost” since, IMO, it’s a more elegant and traditional form of English usage. In these days, it seems to me to be particularly apropos precisely for that reason and because it is a word that is not commonly used for the purpose.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Spirito Santo in Italian.

Holy Ghost to my ears sounds odd. I am not judging anyone who prefers it, though.

 

[PKinsale]

Thanks again, all, maybe I should have put a poll in on preferences. Interesting that some folks prefer “Spirit” because it is closest to the Latin as a direct cognate. Some modern Catholics who do not like the new translation of the Missal oppose it for that very reason.

The reason I ask is because I wonder whether by switching we are losing perspective of the Holy Ghost as a person. When I think of the word “spirit” in English, I think more of an attitude … “school spirit” or “class spirit.” Even, as mentioned above, the dreaded “Spirit of Vatican II.”

 

[JReducation]

I would caution everyone not to blame the “spirit of Vatican II” for everything that we do not like or anything that goes wrong. That would be over simflication and it’s wrong at so many levels. It is true that there are people who claim this or that other nonsense is part of the spirit of Vatican II. But let’s place the failure where it belongs. It belongs with those people, not with the spirit of Vatican II.

The spirit of Vatican II has little or nothing to do with the terms Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. The translation of the missal, lectionary and breviary into English calls for the use of Holy Spirit. That’s all there is to it. I don’t see the complication. I was a novice when we changed from the Latin breviary to the English breviary. I didn’t bat an eye lash then and I don’t today. That was in 1969.

Today, 40 years later just a few weeks ago, I find that it did nothing to inhibit my life of prayer to change from Spiritus Sanctus to Holy Spirit. I still struggle at prayer and I still have moments of great peace and consolation at prayer. The only thing that has changed in 40 years has been my appreciation for prayer. It is far more intense.

I embrace the spirit of Vatican II at many levels. I do not embrace the foolishness of people nor do I tolerate it gladly. But I also remember reading the letters of St. Bonaventure, during my novitiate. He did not appreciate the foolishness of those who invoked the spirit of the Lateran Council to do and say silly things.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF