"Holy Ghost" versus "Holy Spirit"?

[DavidPalm]

I have noticed in traditionalist circles that there is a strong propensity to eschew using the phrase “Holy Spirit” in preference for the phrase “Holy Ghost”. Indeed, some seem to feel quite strongly about this. We joke a bit about this at our Latin Mass apostolate.

For my part, I consider “Holy Spirit” to be a more correct translation, both linguistically and theologically.

I mean no offense to anybody, but I confess that I find the preference for the phrase “Holy Ghost” to be slightly ridiculous. I can fully understand the traditional insistence on the theological precision and superiority of a Latin original. But I cannot understand clinging to a particular English translation. This is especially true when, I would contend, the words have pretty clearly changed meanings in English and when, to me at least, the newer phrase shows no signs of being the product of some sort of “liberal” agenda to confuse or dilute the Faith. It seems to me to be a traditional attitude (a laudable thing in itself) taken to an unfortunate extreme.

But then again, there may be some justification of which I’m ignorant.

Fortunately, this is not a very big deal in the grand scheme of things. I’m curious, though, if anybody has heard any substantive justification for the preference of “Holy Ghost”?

God bless,

David

 

[PatrickJT914]

The word Ghost reminds me of two things. 1.) A scary entity that frightens people and does bad things.:bigyikes: 2.) Caspar the Friendly Ghost.

 

[mystified]

It is all in the liguistics. The influence of German in the amalgam we call Engllish is strong. Spiritu in Latin, is Geister in German, which is easily transliterated to Ghost in English.

 

[rwoehmke]

It is all in the liguistics. The influence of German in the amalgam we call Engllish is strong. Spiritu in Latin, is Geister in German, which is easily transliterated to Ghost in English.

But Zeitgeist is translated as spirit of the time, so…?.

 

[Seamus_L]

Whenever I lead a decade of the rosary in church, I always say “Glory Be To The Father And To The Son And To The Holy Ghost” I’m one of the few who says it that way, but with me it’s a matter of tradition. I’ll never criticise anyone for saying spirit, so long as they never criticise me for saying ghost.

 

[The_Prodigal]

It has nothing at all to do with the German language except to the extent that English ghost is a cognate (not borrowing) of German Geist.

I suspect that the change was promoted around the time of VII, and so using the older expression marks the speaker sociolinguistically as a traditional Catholic - i.e. as rejecting the unnecessary innovation. This happened before my time; I am 40 years old and grew up saying “Spirit.”

I disagree with the OP that on either linguistic or theological grounds the newer expression should be preferred.

Although it can be a bit jarring to hear the phrase if, like me, you grew up saying “Spirit,” I find nothing objectionable in the older expression. The longer I pray the rosary with our congregation before the EF Mass each Sunday, the more I grow accustomed to hearing it.

 

[DavidPalm]

It has nothing at all to do with the German language except to the extent that English ghost is a cognate (not borrowing) of German Geist.

I think that was his point, ghost comes from the German while spirit comes from Latin. One question I have is why “Ghost” was chosen over “Spirit” as a translation of spiritus in the first place.

I suspect that the change was promoted around the time of VII, and so using the older expression marks the speaker sociolinguistically as a traditional Catholic - i.e. as rejecting the unnecessary innovation. This happened before my time; I am 40 years old and grew up saying “Spirit.”

There are a great many pre-VII missals which use the phrase “Holy Spirit”. I would advance that the “necessity”, if one can call it that, is precisely that expressed by PatrickJT914, namely that at this point in time, anyway, the word “ghost” has very different connotations than the word “spirit” and the latter is more conducive to accurately express the nature of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. So linguistically I think it makes much more sense to utilize a Latin cognate rather than a German one, since that keeps the phraseology of the translation closer to the original. And in modern parlance there isn’t anything “ghostlike” about the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, whereas there certainly is something “spiritlike” about him. That would be my own argument concerning the linguistics and theology, anyway.

I disagree with the OP that on either linguistic or theological grounds the newer expression should be preferred.

Fair enough. What are the grounds of your disagreement?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I disagree with the OP that on either linguistic or theological grounds the newer expression should be preferred.

I disagree that what you term the newer expression is, in fact the newer expression. As far as usage in the Church, Latin predates German or any of it’s derivatives. And a great number of cognates ARE a matter of borrowing, as languages develop.

I’ve noted this oddity: lots of “traditionalists” insist that we hew as closely as possible to the Latin when rendering translations (if we’re going to commit the regretable error of translating at all, that is), yet still insist on “Holy Ghost.” I suspect that they regard it as one more “identifier,” another demarcation between the sheep and the goats, the washed and the unwashed, over which they can pat themselves rather smugly on the back.

 

[malphono]

It has nothing at all to do with the German language except to the extent that English ghost is a cognate (not borrowing) of German Geist.

I suspect that the change was promoted around the time of VII, and so using the older expression marks the speaker sociolinguistically as a traditional Catholic - i.e. as rejecting the unnecessary innovation. This happened before my time; I am 40 years old and grew up saying “Spirit.”

I disagree with the OP that on either linguistic or theological grounds the newer expression should be preferred.

Although it can be a bit jarring to hear the phrase if, like me, you grew up saying “Spirit,” I find nothing objectionable in the older expression. The longer I pray the rosary with our congregation before the EF Mass each Sunday, the more I grow accustomed to hearing it.

Good post.

Yes, it was a post-conciliar change, and I never did understand the reason for it. Then again, I never quite understood the reason behind most of the post-conciliar changes in the first place.

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 know very little Greek, but if one takes the Semitic word (ruah in Hebrew, with similar variants in the Aramaic dialects) it’s primary meaning is the same as the Greek, so the same principles would apply.)

Various arguments, including the usual horror movie relation and the Caspar thing, are proffered against the word “ghost”, but at the same time there are other arguments that go against “spirit” e.g., spirits = liquor, or “that’s the spirit,” etc. 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.

 

[jean8]

I have noticed in traditionalist circles that there is a strong propensity to eschew using the phrase “Holy Spirit” in preference for the phrase “Holy Ghost”. Indeed, some seem to feel quite strongly about this. We joke a bit about this at our Latin Mass apostolate.

For my part, I consider “Holy Spirit” to be a more correct translation, both linguistically and theologically.

I mean no offense to anybody, but I confess that I find the preference for the phrase “Holy Ghost” to be slightly ridiculous. I can fully understand the traditional insistence on the theological precision and superiority of a Latin original. But I cannot understand clinging to a particular English translation. This is especially true when, I would contend, the words have pretty clearly changed meanings in English and when, to me at least, the newer phrase shows no signs of being the product of some sort of “liberal” agenda to confuse or dilute the Faith. It seems to me to be a traditional attitude (a laudable thing in itself) taken to an unfortunate extreme.

But then again, there may be some justification of which I’m ignorant.

Fortunately, this is not a very big deal in the grand scheme of things. I’m curious, though, if anybody has heard any substantive justification for the preference of “Holy Ghost”?

God bless,

David

David,
I think it depends on which version of the Bible your reading. I have them all.
The Holy Spirit is God. See acts. 5:3-4

 

[Rabbititus]

It seems to me that both were used prior to the council. I have a missal from the 1930’s that favors “Spirit,” for example. Another good example is the very common hymn “Come Holy Ghost” with its third verse:

Praise be to Thee, Father and Son,
And Holy Spirit, three in one
And may the Son on us bestow
The gifts that from the Spirit flow
The gifts that from the Spirit flow

I think either is fine. Both mean the same thing, and I don’t think one can accuse those who like “Ghost” better for being hypocritical for not liking inaccurate translations like those currently in use for the OF. The main objections to the old ICEL translations have more to do with the translators leaving things out and adding personal creativity. Using “Ghost” in the “Glory Be” is rather accurate when compared to, say, the mangling of the Gloria we currently use.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Using “Ghost” in the “Glory Be” is rather accurate when compared to, say, the mangling of the Gloria we currently use.

But not as accurate as it COULD be.

 

[redrosetea]

A rose by any other name…

 

[DaveBj]

This stems from the fact that back in the days of Elizabethan/Shakespearian English, the meanings for “ghost” and “spirit” were reversed. “Holy Ghost” was the third person of the Holy Trinity, while a “spirit” was something that jumped out at you from behind a gravestone and yelled “Boo!”

“Holy Spirit” is the preferred English usage in the 20th-21st centuries, but no one who wants to used the more archaic “Holy Ghost” is wrong.

DaveBj

 

[JKirkLVNV]

“Holy Spirit” is the preferred English usage in the 20th-21st centuries, but no one who wants to used the more archaic “Holy Ghost” is wrong.

DaveBj

No, certainly not, but, apropos of the original post, it’s ridiculous to make an issue of it at all.

 

[DavidPalm]

I’ve noted this oddity: lots of “traditionalists” insist that we hew as closely as possible to the Latin when rendering translations (if we’re going to commit the regretable error of translating at all, that is), yet still insist on “Holy Ghost.” I suspect that they regard it as one more “identifier,” another demarcation between the sheep and the goats, the washed and the unwashed, over which they can pat themselves rather smugly on the back.

Well, this is phrased a bit strongly, but it is something of an “identifier” in traditionalist circles. One of my friends will say, with a twinkle in his eye, “We’re a Holy Ghost family, you hear?..” before he leads the meal prayer when we’re there. He’s kidding, but there is that element of this being a sort of cultural identifier.

And it’s a very odd one, IMO. On what grounds would we cling to a vernacular phrase in which the main word has radically changed meanings? I could see the argument made in the case of a word that had changed for overtly ideological reasons, like “gay” for instance. But can that case be made for the semantic shift (or swap, as DavidBj rightly observes) between “ghost” and “spirit”? If not then this does seem to me to be carrying a healthy resistance to change rather too far.

It is a great irony that we traditionalists can be quick to correct others, up to and including the Pope. But sometimes I think we’re not self-critical enough.

God bless,

David

 

[Yours_Truly]

“Holy Ghost” was the third person of the Holy Trinity, while a “spirit” was something that jumped out at you from behind a gravestone and yelled “Boo!”

So that’s what that was the other night. Thanks for cleaing it up

 

[Rabbititus]

But not as accurate as it COULD be.

But it is accurate, it’s just not a Latinate word. It’s not a deliberate mistranslation, or an omission that obscures the meaning of the original.

While I’ve been to a number of old school masses, I haven’t really hung out with a lot of traditionalists, so I didn’t know it was an “identifier.” I usually hear it from “older” people who learned it that way when they were young. I’ve heard one of the priests at my (fairly typical Novus Ordo) church say “Ghost” when reciting the Glory Be, even though he says “Spirit” in all other instances.

Aside for traditionalists and older people, “Holy Ghost” seems to be favored in popular (secular) music. There’s a song by the White Stripes that mentions it, as well as The Faint.

 

[maurin]

I disagree that what you term the newer expression is, in fact the newer expression. As far as usage in the Church, Latin predates German or any of it’s derivatives. And a great number of cognates ARE a matter of borrowing, as languages develop.

I’ve noted this oddity: lots of “traditionalists” insist that we hew as closely as possible to the Latin when rendering translations (if we’re going to commit the regretable error of translating at all, that is), yet still insist on “Holy Ghost.” I suspect that they regard it as one more “identifier,” another demarcation between the sheep and the goats, the washed and the unwashed, over which they can pat themselves rather smugly on the back.

Kirk, this post is so far beneath the dignity and accuracy of your average post, I wasn’t sure if you are lampooning or if you are serious.

I’ll tell you what…we’ll give you “Holy Ghost” in exchange for “Holy Spirit” if you give us back the Roman Canon. Is it a deal?

And for your outrageous and outlandish comment about committing the “regretable error of translating”, every Missal I’ve had my hands on, from the one printed by Kennedy and Sons in 1936 to the one I use weekly printed by Baronius Press recently, ALL have the English Translations next to the Latin.

We don’t mind the translations, Kirk. We believe we have the right that the translations be accurate.

But you know that. So why waste the bandwith?

 

[Yours_Truly]

I’ll tell you what…we’ll give you “Holy Ghost” in exchange for “Holy Spirit” if you give us back the Roman Canon…

And the teaching of Mortalium Animos.