From Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit

  • Thread starter Thread starter PKinsale
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
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 🙂
Click to expand...
Correct. As I’ve mentioned, one of the first usages of ‘Holy Spirit’ we have in a translation of the Bible was the Revised Version of 1881-1885, 80 years before Vatican II, which shows that the term was already in use at the time. 😉
 
patrick457 said:
Correct. As I’ve mentioned, one of the first usages of ‘Holy Spirit’ we have in a translation of the Bible was the Revised Version of 1881-1885, 80 years before Vatican II, which shows that the term was already in use at the time. 😉
Click to expand...
But this would probably be more of the argument that the power and frequency of the Latin was slowly overtaking the power of the Germanic in the English language. This would be true in many other words that we use today or will be using soon, for example, “consubstantial.” One of my older (1942?) missals already had this unofficially translated as such. It was only a matter of time till it would officially become part of the English Mass. The precision of the Latin is more noteworthy here.
 
patrick457 said:
Correct. As I’ve mentioned, one of the first usages of ‘Holy Spirit’ we have in a translation of the Bible was the Revised Version of 1881-1885, 80 years before Vatican II, which shows that the term was already in use at the time. 😉
Click to expand...
But this would probably be more of the argument that the power and frequency of the Latin was slowly overtaking the power of the Germanic in the English language. This would be true in many other words that we use today or will be using soon, for example, “consubstantial.” One of my older (1942?) missals already had this unofficially translated as such. It was only a matter of time till it would officially become part of the English Mass. The precision of the Latin is more noteworthy here.
 
JReducation said:
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.
Click to expand...
I suppose a clarification is in order here. My use, at least, of the "spirit of Vatican II (notice that it was in quotes then and now) is precisely that laundry-list of nonsense to which you referred above.
JReducation said:
The spirit of Vatican II has little or nothing to do with the terms Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
From my perspective, the discussion of “Holy Spirit” vs “Holy Ghost” really has nothing to do with translation from the Latin. Both English words are valid and accurate translations. However, IMO it does have to do with the abrupt and arbitrary imposition of one over the other.

I’ll not argue that the term “Holy Spirit” was unknown and unused prior to 1965, as it most certainly was both known and used. But, it was not to the exclusion of the older English term, which was arguably more common. How does one explain that in 1964 “Holy Ghost” was commonly used in English, but by 1966 it’s use was relegated to the dust bin, and those who continued to use it were considered reactionary fossils? The one answer that comes to mind is that it’s an example of the nonsense that stemmed from the "spirit of Vatican II (and again, notice the quotes).
 
malphono said:
I suppose a clarification is in order here. My use, at least, of the "spirit of Vatican II (notice that it was in quotes then and now) is precisely that laundry-list of nonsense to which you referred above.

From my perspective, the discussion of “Holy Spirit” vs “Holy Ghost” really has nothing to do with translation from the Latin. Both English words are valid and accurate translations. However, IMO it does have to do with the abrupt and arbitrary imposition of one over the other.

I’ll not argue that the term “Holy Spirit” was unknown and unused prior to 1965, as it most certainly was both known and used. But, it was not to the exclusion of the older English term, which was arguably more common. How does one explain that in 1964 “Holy Ghost” was commonly used in English, but by 1966 it’s use was relegated to the dust bin, and those who continued to use it were considered reactionary fossils? The one answer that comes to mind is that it’s an example of the nonsense that stemmed from the "spirit of Vatican II (and again, notice the quotes).
Click to expand...
Permit me to ask a question, aside from the fact that some people’s attitudes toward the older English usage was rude, why is the use of Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit that important?

I do understand the importance of answering the question, “Why do we say Holy Spirit today?” The answer is, “It’s a literal translation from Latin.”

That’s not my question. My question is why is it so important to people that we say this one or that one?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Darn that Vatican II. I no longer have a davenport in my sitting room. 😦 Wait a minute, I don’t have a sitting room anymore either! :eek:
 
felsguy said:
Darn that Vatican II. I no longer have a davenport in my sitting room. 😦 Wait a minute, I don’t have a sitting room anymore either! :eek:
Click to expand...
Then where’s your davenport now – in the parlor?
 
BernadetteM said:
In the Anglican Use Catholic parishes they use both the Holy Spirit and also the Holy Ghost.

Even as a former Anglo Catholic they used both. For some reason I prefer Holy Ghost, probably because that is the way I said most prayers, I still use Holy Ghost in private during the Rosary and In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. It just seems to come naturally.

Both mean the same, so I don’t feel there is a problem using either/or.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
Click to expand...
I too prefer Holy Ghost. Like the Catholic Hymn - “Come Holy Ghost” It would definitely make that Hymn sound a lot different…😉
 
I love the English language’s diversity, often having parallel Germanic and Latin phrases like these two. And sometimes “spirit” works better when two syllables flow more nicely. But in general I much prefer the simpler, older, and more dignified “ghost” to “spirit”.
 
My preference is “spirit” rather than ghost. I actually find “spirit” to be more respectful a term.

“Ghost” brings to mind too many bad memories of being in an “apostolic/pentecostal” church as a child where the pastor would grab my head and scream in my face above the din of the chaos that is that… flavor of worship… “give this boy the holy ghost!! AMEN! GIVE THIS BOY THE HOLY GHOST!!!”

I spent a loooong time as an agnostic after escaping that place…

“spirit” is nice and quiet, peaceful even…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top