"Holy Ghost" versus "Holy Spirit"?

[Extempore]

This is entirely personal opinion, so feel free to disregard but I’ve tend to think that the use of “Holy Spirit” carries a bit of an inference of ambiguity.

After all, we have “the spirit of the council”,“spirit of worship” and “spirit of the times” and all sorts of other terms that can lead to ambiguity and perhaps confusion. On the other hand, when we use the term “Holy Ghost” people know that we are ONLY referring to the Third Person of the Trinity and not these other concepts.

And given modern connotations, “Spirit” has a nicer “feel” to it than “Ghost” so perhaps that had something to do with it.

 

[Chatter163]

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

But that is exactly what the OP did NOT do. Not only did he say it was an non-issue and then proceeded to make it one, he even claimed that it was “ridiculous” to use Holy Ghost. Oh, brother… :whacky:

 

[DavidPalm]

But that is exactly what the OP did NOT do. Not only did he say it was an non-issue and then proceeded to make it one, he even claimed that it was “ridiculous” to use Holy Ghost. Oh, brother… :whacky:

I said that it wasn’t a big deal (which it’s not) and that I consider it “slightly” ridiculous, which I do (although Extempore’s explanation was, at least, an explanation and not merely an assertion.)

As they say, if you don’t care for a particular discussion, there’re lots of others for you to participate in.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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?

I love the Roman Canon and far prefer it, so no problem here. My point is that the question of “Ghost” vs. “Spirit” is rather absurd, but it seems to be something of a big deal to some “traditionalists,” one more thing about which they can pat themselves on the back for not giving in on.

And of course, re: the translation, you know my response: it still seems an odd thing to have, for example, an English speaking priest standing before an English speaking congregation speaking in Latin while the English speaking congregation follows along with an English translation of what their English speaking priest is saying…in Latin.

 

[Extempore]

And of course, re: the translation, you know my response: it still seems an odd thing to have, for example, an English speaking priest standing before an English speaking congregation speaking in Latin while the English speaking congregation follows along with an English translation of what their English speaking priest is saying…in Latin.

Unless, of course, you factor in the ever-important point that the English speaking countries only make up a tiny portion of the population. Given the plethora of different available languages and dialects and the fact that many priests travel to all areas of the world, Latin suddenly seems a like very cohesive solution. Go anywhere in the world, and the Mass would be almost exactly the same. It really underscores what the word “Catholic” means, anyhow.

Too bad it is all but gone.

 

[drforjc]

Either is perfectly fine. Non-issue, to be sure.

 

[johnnykins]

Honestly, asinine threads like this do the Traditionalist movement no good. In fact threads like this provide fodder for those who are anti-traditionalist.

It’s a non-issue.

 

[Layman]

My opinion is that the liturgy has be tweaked near-to-death by ‘liturgical scholars’, innovators, crowd-pleasers and archaeologists, so as a statement of my allegiance to tradition, I prefer ‘Ghost’.

 

[dkrodriguez]

There may be a reason why one should be preferred over the other, but I am not aware of it. I use both in my prayers and discussions.

 

[maurin]

I love the Roman Canon and far prefer it, so no problem here. My point is that the question of “Ghost” vs. “Spirit” is rather absurd, but it seems to be something of a big deal to some “traditionalists,” one more thing about which they can pat themselves on the back for not giving in on.

I guess I know what you mean, Kirk. I know a lot of liberals who do similar things with Latin. for example:

And of course, re: the translation, you know my response: it still seems an odd thing to have, for example, an English speaking priest standing before an English speaking congregation speaking in Latin while the English speaking congregation follows along with an English translation of what their English speaking priest is saying…in Latin.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

It’s a distinction w/o a diffference. The word “ghost” makes me think of things that go “Woo-hoo !” - & I don’t mean American teenagers.​

http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/smiley-faces-73.gifhttp://www.allemoticons.com/Holidays/ghost.gif

 

[The_Prodigal]

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.

The only pre-VII missal I own uses “Ghost.” It is a Saint Joseph Daily Missal from 1956. Be that as it may, I thought we were discussing the spoken language.

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.

For those who were brought up using the expression, and who never stopped saying “Holy Ghost” in their prayers and devotions, the meaning is plain, unambiguous, and always did and always will refer to the Third Person of the Trinity.

For those people, the expression “Ghost” never had the connotation “ghostlike” in the sense you refer to: (potentially wicked) incoporeal beings of folklore or inane children’s cartoons. It simply translates spiritus.

If “Spirit” is to be preferred on the grounds that it more closely resembles the Latin, then we ought to jettison “Holy” as well (another word with a Germanic (not German) etymology). In another thread on a CAF forum, I suggested “Sanctified Spirit” might fit the bill. While we’re at it, let’s Latinize the syntax as well: “Spirit Sanctified.”

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

I personally use both, but I was raised on the King James Bible so I usually prefer Holy Ghost (even though that Translation uses both terms). To me Holy Ghost has a more traditional and authoritative sound to it for some reason. Holy Spirit sounds a little more “common” so to speak for some reason.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Didn’t one commonly used formula for concluding confession run “I ask penance and absolution of you, my ghostly father” (i.e. the priest) ?

VC

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I guess I know what you mean, Kirk. I know a lot of liberals who do similar things with Latin. for example:

I’m one of the least liberal people of your aquaintance, Maurin. Indeed, I have the honor of being described by a real life, bona fide, honest to gosh liberal as being a “typical white male with a pre-Vatican II mindset.” I’m not patting myself on the back re: the use of the vernacular nor is it a particularly “telling” clue that one prefers the vernacular. That’s my point: there seem to be all sorts of minute critieria, like flags popping up on an obstacle course, for “traditionalists.” “Like Latin (and I don’t dislike Latin at all, I simply prefer the vernacular)? Good…how about the prayers at the foot of the altar? Excellent! Do you say ‘ghost’ or 'spirit?” ARRRGGGGGHHHH! So close!"

 

[Ghoti]

For those who were brought up using the expression, and who never stopped saying “Holy Ghost” in their prayers and devotions, the meaning is plain, unambiguous, and always did and always will refer to the Third Person of the Trinity.

For those people, the expression “Ghost” never had the connotation “ghostlike” in the sense you refer to: (potentially wicked) incoporeal beings of folklore or inane children’s cartoons. It simply translates spiritus.

You mean to tell me that there were no “ghosts” or “ghost stories”, “ghostly apparitions”, etc, before Vatican II?

If “Spirit” is to be preferred on the grounds that it more closely resembles the Latin, then we ought to jettison “Holy” as well (another word with a Germanic (not German) etymology). In another thread on a CAF forum, I suggested “Sanctified Spirit” might fit the bill. While we’re at it, let’s Latinize the syntax as well: “Spirit Sanctified.”

Main problem with that is that “sanctified” is not a translation of “sanctus” – to be “sanctified” means to be "made sanctus" – the Holy Spirit is already “sanctus”. So calling the Holy Ghost/Spirit “Spirit Sanctified” would be heretical. AFAIK, there is no Romance-descended word in English for “sanctus”, hence we use the Germanic (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) descended word “holy”.

I think it’s a usage thing, as mentioned above. When first translated into English, I guess, it was “Holy Ghost”, and stayed that way. In today’s English, “Holy Spirit” would be better – assuming the Word came to us first today. IMHO, “Holy Spirit” seems to “work” better when you read things like Genesis: “1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the **spirit **of God moved over the waters.”

I just did a quick search of the DR online for the word “Ghost”: 102 hits, mostly in the NT; the ones that weren’t “Holy Ghost” were all in the form of the idiom “give up the ghost”.

I also did a search of “spirit”, and got 489 hits, examples:

• Numbers 11:25 And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spoke to him, taking away of the **spirit **that was in Moses, and giving to the seventy men. And when the **spirit **had rested on them they prophesied, nor did they cease afterwards.
• Genesis 1:2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
• Matthew 3:16 And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.
• Matthew 12:31 Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the **Spirit **shall not be forgiven.
• Mark 1:10 And forthwith coming up out of he water, he saw the heavens opened, and the **Spirit **as a dove descending, and remaining on him…12 And immediately the **Spirit **drove him out into the desert.
• Luke 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, !] returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the desert,…

Now since I found only either “Spirit” or “Holy Ghost”, I looked up “Holy Spirit” (8 hits):

• Psalms 50:13 Cast me not away from thy face; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
• Wisdom 9:17 And who shall know thy thought, except thou give wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from above:…
• Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is luxury; but be ye filled with the holy Spirit,…

One of the things I find problematic is the inconsistent capitalization. (I also wish they’d capitalize the personal pronouns when referring to any of the Trinity.)

Again, only my opinion, but what recommends “Holy Spirit” is that one can more directly tie it to “Spirit of God” or “Your Spirit”, in that the Spirit is a Person, One of the Godhead, not an “emanation” of God. What recommends “Holy Ghost” is tradition: it’s what was used first, and has longevity on its side, and a meaning that hasn’t changed. I personally use Holy Spirit (not by preference, but by habit), unless called for differently, say by the words of a hymn (“Come, Holy Ghost”), and have no problem with either.

 

[maurin]

I’m one of the least liberal people of your aquaintance, Maurin. Indeed, I have the honor of being described by a real life, bona fide, honest to gosh liberal as being a “typical white male with a pre-Vatican II mindset.” I’m not patting myself on the back re: the use of the vernacular nor is it a particularly “telling” clue that one prefers the vernacular. That’s my point: there seem to be all sorts of minute critieria, like flags popping up on an obstacle course, for “traditionalists.” “Like Latin (and I don’t dislike Latin at all, I simply prefer the vernacular)? Good…how about the prayers at the foot of the altar? Excellent! Do you say ‘ghost’ or 'spirit?” ARRRGGGGGHHHH! So close!"

come now, Kirk…the argument you presented for preferring the vernacular is about as strong as oxidized metal, and makes just as much sense as this whole thread.

 

[Chatter163]

I said that it wasn’t a big deal (which it’s not) and that I consider it “slightly” ridiculous, which I do (although Extempore’s explanation was, at least, an explanation and not merely an assertion.)

Yes, as I said, you called its use ridiculous, after claiming that it was a non-issue. That certainly makes your position clear, whether you used the word slightly or not. This appears to be a clear case of speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth.

As they say, if you don’t care for a particular discussion, there’re lots of others for you to participate in.

I am not sure who “they” are, but I will continue to comment on posts as I see fit, thank you. Sorry if you figure that folks should not post anything that is different from what you believe, but that is, after all, part of what a forum is about.

 

[DavidPalm]

Sorry if you figure that folks should not post anything that is different from what you believe, but that is, after all, part of what a forum is about.

I have no problem at all with someone disagreeing with me. I ask only that my position is accurately presented. You haven’t managed that yet.

I do think the discussion on principles of vernacular translation vis-a-vis a traditional outlook has been worthwhile. This specific example highlights a broader principle: when does the semantic shift of a word trump its long-standing use in a vernacular liturgical text?

 

[The_Prodigal]

You mean to tell me that there were no “ghosts” or “ghost stories”, “ghostly apparitions”, etc, before Vatican II?

No, that isn’t the point. In the context of prayer and religious devotions, the meaning of Holy Ghost is unambiguous and has nothing to do with those other meanings.

Main problem with that is that “sanctified” is not a translation of “sanctus” – to be “sanctified” means to be "made sanctus" – the Holy Spirit is already “sanctus”. So calling the Holy Ghost/Spirit “Spirit Sanctified” would be heretical.

Tell that to Saint Jerome.

Sanctus is by origin the perfect passive participle to the verb sancire.

See the Lewis and Short entry here.

From that entry:

“The original meaning was **rendered sacred, established as inviolable,i. e. sacred, inviolable.” **

May God bless you, however you prefer to call Him.

Over and out on this thread.