"Holy Ghost" versus "Holy Spirit"?

[ProVobis]

Do you say ‘ghost’ or 'spirit?" ARRRGGGGGHHHH! So close!"

Neither. SPIRITUS. Which, by the way, is a 4th declension noun. Spiritus, Spiritus, Spiritui, Spiritum, Spiritu.

Not counting the Anglican Use, the Church has not allowed the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar in the vernacular.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

Setting aside predjudices, Maurin, it makes perfect sense. And preference is simply that: a preference. I prefer it because I prefer it, given my druthers.

 

[Ghoti]

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: etc etc etc…

Eh, bien…my Latin is limited to a dog-eared Bantam Dictionary and what I can Google.

I was merely being tongue-in-cheek. I have no preference either way – I use one more often than the other because that is what I was exposed to most growing up.

I think it sad, though, if Catholics use one or the other as a shibboleth.

The_Prodigal:

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

Thank you, and may Almighty God bless you, all Three of Him.

The_Prodigal:

Over and out on this thread.

OK, this one I can call you on. One does not use “Over and out”. “Over” means “This is the end of my transmission to you and a response is necessary. Go ahead; transmit.” “Out” means “This is the end of my transmission to you and no answer is required or expected”. Allied Communication Publication (ACP) 125 refers.

Pedantically yours, John.

OUT.

 

[maurin]

Setting aside predjudices, Maurin, it makes perfect sense. And preference is simply that: a preference. I prefer it because I prefer it, given my druthers.

yeah, if you say so, Kirk. but somehow the language in the post of yours we are referring to wasn’t quite as innocent as this one is.

 

[maslibertad]

one and the same, I tend to say both. Ghost is more germanic while spirit is more english and latin based.

 

[ProVobis]

Setting aside predjudices, Maurin, it makes perfect sense. And preference is simply that: a preference. I prefer it because I prefer it, given my druthers.

The vernacular requires no work on your part. It isn’t just a preference as much as convenience for everyone who’s involved. Commonness is the real issue and how many at your Mass have that commonness. **By design **a Latin Mass excludes no one while an English Mass may exclude hispanics, filipinos, etc. A Latin Mass, whether of the OF or EF, is indeed more universal amongst Catholics.

As far as whether Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is correct, either one is okay as long as you understand Who is involved. Just because “spirit” sounds like “spiritus” really misses the point. Hostia sounds like “Host” but I think it’s better interpreted as “Victim” to indicate the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Do you see this difference yet?

 

[Ghoti]

The vernacular requires no work on your part. It isn’t just a preference as much as convenience for everyone who’s involved. Commonness is the real issue and how many at your Mass have that commonness. **By design **a Latin Mass excludes no one while an English Mass may exclude hispanics, filipinos, etc. A Latin Mass, whether of the OF or EF, is indeed more universal amongst Catholics.

As far as whether Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is correct, either one is okay as long as you understand Who is involved. Just because “spirit” sounds like “spiritus” really misses the point. Hostia sounds like “Host” but I think it’s better interpreted as “Victim” to indicate the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Do you see this difference yet?

YMMV, but…

…I can see your point. I always thought that the Host was called the “Host” because it “held” (“Hosted”) Christ. Now, altho’ I am a 100% transsubstantiationist, a misinterpretation of the etymology of “Host” could lead someone to hold a “consubstantionist” view.

On a related but side note, I really wish they hadn’t translated “swaddling clothes” into “bands of cloth” in the Nativity readings.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The vernacular requires no work on your part. It isn’t just a preference as much as convenience for everyone who’s involved. Commonness is the real issue and how many at your Mass have that commonness. **By design **a Latin Mass excludes no one while an English Mass may exclude hispanics, filipinos, etc. A Latin Mass, whether of the OF or EF, is indeed more universal amongst Catholics.

As far as whether Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is correct, either one is okay as long as you understand Who is involved. Just because “spirit” sounds like “spiritus” really misses the point. Hostia sounds like “Host” but I think it’s better interpreted as “Victim” to indicate the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Do you see this difference yet?

I don’t care whether or not one uses “ghost” or “spirit.” I DO think it’s silly that some “traditionalists” seem to care. That was the point I was attempting to make.

You’re quite right. I attend what is, by and large, an English speaking parish. Most of the parishes in my city ARE English, though some offer Spanish masses as well and the one that predominately Hispanic offers two masses in English. I think in the balance scale, far more is gained by the Mass being in the vernacular, not in terms of its effectualness in doing what the Church teaches that the Mass does, but in the understanding of the congregation hearing the words spoken. I know the words resonate far more for me than when I hear them in a language I don’t understand, whether it’s Spanish or Latin. And I think the “commoness” and “exclusion” card is overplayed. Where the vernacular is offered, it’s offered in the language of the locale for which it is intended and the locals understand it and benefit from it being in the vernacular. The odd tourist may not, but we take that risk when we travel. Where I to go to France, I would quite expect to hear the Mass in French.

 

[Frosty]

And I think the “commoness” and “exclusion” card is overplayed. Where the vernacular is offered, it’s offered in the language of the locale for which it is intended and the locals understand it and benefit from it being in the vernacular. The odd tourist may not, but we take that risk when we travel. Where I to go to France, I would quite expect to hear the Mass in French.

I agree. This past Fall, I spent three months in Europe; Italy, Hungary, Austria, Germany, France, Spain and England. I had no problem following along with the prayers of the Mass in any of those countries, After all these years I know the words by heart. I had my missalette with me so I could follow the readings. The homilies on Sundays pretty well were over my head but then they were when I spent time in Europe back in the days when the Mass was all in Latin too!

 

[ProVobis]

but in the understanding of the congregation hearing the words spoken.

But there lies the problem. Comprehension is easily lost through the spoken word. If you don’t believe it, try this experiment: Take about five people and whisper a paragraph or two into the first person’s ear. Then have him whisper what he heard into the second person’s ear. And so forth. Then have the fifth person write down what he heard. And then compare that against what you spoke into the first person’s ear. I’ll bet you’ll die laughing at what you read. There is a thread on the other forum about mishearing the lyrics of some popular hymns, if you have time.

Point is you need to keep the written word intact. The vernacular just doesn’t work. Unless you put it on youtube.

 

[Tartini]

I have to admit it is a good and thoughful question that you present, and many of the posts are adequate in the explaination of the matter concerning the linguistics of it. However, this is one of many small trifles in terms that faithful tend to argue to no useful point ( I may be doing that now with this post). The bigger issues, such as the way one recieves Holy Communion and other abused and lax liturgical practices must take our first consideration, and for good reason, and can be very worthwhile for a subject of discussion. But little habits, good or bad, can grow into either good practices or gross errors, so I do not want you to consider that it is an unimportant point that you make.
The terms one may use most likely will stem from either a habit aquired through practice, a particular cultural background, simple personal preference and most importantly, a sound education. The term *Spirit *and Ghost are really one in the same. It is still understood as to what is refered to dispite the term utilized. At the Traditional Mass, and in the Roman Catholic Daily Missal, I have noticed that the term Ghost is used exclusively. The term Ghost is a tradition. The term Spirit was brought about with Vatican ll changes. As one posts commented, it was due to the connotation that the term *Ghost *has a “frightening” character to it. I would think that only a very superstitious or historically ignorant person would subscribe to such thoughts, or someone who is modernistic in thought and relate things in the world to that which the media has deemed as supposed social “truths” through bad movies and books. This is a sad social fact, of which there seems no hope of human correction.
In the use of the two terms, respectively, it can tend to become a unity matter. Have you ever noticed the periods of united spoken prayer, when some say Ghost and others say Spirit, the slight, but instant, disruption of rhythm and sound that occurs? I know this happens often due to the individual habit of any given parishioner and can often be distracting, but must be overlooked with understanding. If on the otherhand, one may simply be practicing some obstinate act by insisting on “going against the grain” when it is clear that the term is both visually clear and accepted by a majority of parishioners during prayer, than there can be a problem. It is like hitting a wrong note, let’s say “B flat” when the score clearly states it should be a “B natural”. One must remember that the use and meanings of even the most obviously defined of words and wordings were one of the most divisive factors that brought about Protestantism, and still occurs even within their own ranks, bringing about even further divisions that seem to have no end…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But there lies the problem. Comprehension is easily lost through the spoken word. If you don’t believe it, try this experiment: Take about five people and whisper a paragraph or two into the first person’s ear. Then have him whisper what he heard into the second person’s ear. And so forth. Then have the fifth person write down what he heard. And then compare that against what you spoke into the first person’s ear. I’ll bet you’ll die laughing at what you read. There is a thread on the other forum about mishearing the lyrics of some popular hymns, if you have time.

Point is you need to keep the written word intact. The vernacular just doesn’t work. Unless you put it on youtube.

This doesn’t hold up. The game you suggest is one I’ve played with my students through the years. Yes, it’s a hoot, but there is no lesson in it to be derived regarding the Mass in the vernacular, esp. in this modern age with artificial amplification. You paint with a broad brush with “the vernacular just doesn’t work.” Nothing you’ve suggested supports that.

 

[DavidPalm]

This doesn’t hold up. The game you suggest is one I’ve played with my students through the years. Yes, it’s a hoot, but there is no lesson in it to be derived regarding the Mass in the vernacular, esp. in this modern age with artificial amplification. You paint with a broad brush with “the vernacular just doesn’t work.” Nothing you’ve suggested supports that.

If vernacular is intrinsically so effective in communicating the truths of the Mass, why are so many Catholics completely ignorant about the meaning of the Mass? It would seem either that 1) the vernacular by itself is not so intrinsically effective as claimed, or 2) the text of the Novus Ordo in and of itself does not very effectively communicate the meaning of the Mass, or 3) some combination of 1 and 2.

Even my very young children understand a great deal more about the Mass than your average adult Catholic in this country and they know nothing but the traditional Latin Mass. It’s really catechesis that is necessary, not just the vernacular. And since that is the case it would seem to make much more sense to expend that catechetical effort on the unfathomable riches of the traditional Roman Rite.

 

[Frosty]

The terms one may use most likely will stem from either a habit aquired through practice, a particular cultural background, simple personal preference and most importantly, a sound education. The term *Spirit *and Ghost are really one in the same. It is still understood as to what is refered to dispite the term utilized. At the Traditional Mass, and in the Roman Catholic Daily Missal, I have noticed that the term Ghost is used exclusively. The term Ghost is a tradition. The term Spirit was brought about with Vatican ll changes.

• The use of “Spirit” instead of “Ghost” was not* brought about by any Vatican II changes. I have in front of me, two St. Joseph Daily Missals, one was published in 1959 and the other in 1963. In both the Mass begins with:
  “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son. and of the Holy Spirit. Amen”.

As one posts commented, it was due to the connotation that the term *Ghost *has a “frightening” character to it. …

This is nothing but idle speculation unless you have some proof.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If vernacular is intrinsically so effective in communicating the truths of the Mass, why are so many Catholics completely ignorant about the meaning of the Mass? It would seem either that 1) the vernacular by itself is not so intrinsically effective as claimed, or 2) the text of the Novus Ordo in and of itself does not very effectively communicate the meaning of the Mass, or 3) some combination of 1 and 2.

Very bad logic. You’ve only briefly touched on a 3rd option that is perfectly reasonable and which indicts neither the vernacular or the OF (neither of which can be indicted in this contex. they simply are what they are. For example, “crux” doesn’t convey any more meaning that “cross”). CATECHESIS, either in classes or homilies and almost universally undertaken in the vernacular, has fallen off very badly over the last 40 years, more often than not in under-emphasized truths, but also frequently in overt denials of what the Mass means. That is not the fault of either the Mass or the Vernacular (a written translation would, logically, be just as faulty and “traditionalists” make ready use of those in their missals), but of the quality of teaching and the teachers presenting that teaching. I’m farily certain your children have benefited from catechesis. Had they attended Mass in the vernacular, but still had the same catechesis, they’ve probably be in the same good state.

 

[DavidPalm]

I’m farily certain your children have benefited from catechesis. Had they attended Mass in the vernacular, but still had the same catechesis, they’ve probably be in the same good state.

Yes I agree, that’s my point exactly. If they would have been in the same good state with the same catechesis, then there was no good reason to make the radical swing to the all-vernacular Mass. It has yet to be demonstrated that the Church got any real benefit from that uncalled-for novelty, while it is demonstrable that there was significant harm. Cf. the fact now admitted even by the Vatican that the English translations, at least, are in places incorrect and even theologically defective. Prior to the Council several Popes had pointed to the Latin as a bulwark against theological imprecision and confusion. IMO they have been proven correct.

 

[Tartini]

Frosty,
**
You wrote:
“This is nothing but idle speculation unless you have some proof.”
**
*That statement is possibly the most truthful statement one can make concerning any subject which demands careful and thought out considerations before applying certain statements as final. I apologize for any omission on my part, as I failed to include some reliable research references concerning my statement, and the other Missals which you refer to. That truely was an error on my part, ( and my statement is most certainly founded in only speculation, not actual proof) and I thank you for the correction, so that others may know better and I can be wary of future errors. Personal observations and opinions are useless in arguments of such a nature, particularly in religious subjects, and cannot be considered valid unless there is some evidence to back it up. I am prompted to research on the strength of your statement, which is a good thing, as this is how one learns truths and eradicates errors in judgements and opinions. Once again forgive my error in lack of proper and scholarly editing on my part. *

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes I agree, that’s my point exactly. If they would have been in the same good state with the same catechesis, then there was no good reason to make the radical swing to the all-vernacular Mass. It has yet to be demonstrated that the Church got any real benefit from that uncalled-for novelty, while it is demonstrable that there was significant harm. Cf. the fact now admitted even by the Vatican that the English translations, at least, are in places incorrect and even theologically defective. Prior to the Council several Popes had pointed to the Latin as a bulwark against theological imprecision and confusion. IMO they have been proven correct.

Again, very bad logic and somewhat bad history. The original switch to Latin WAS a switch out of Greek to the more common, vernacular Latin. Also, the Church HAS permitted the use of the vernacular throughout history. There is no demonstrable proof that the vernacular mass has caused significat harm, either, ie, “correlation does not prove causation.” Yes, the translations need to be tightened and that’s happening now. As for papal arguments about theological imprecision, I’m talking about the day in, day out use in the liturgy, not in theological education. You see, if the vernacular is inherently degraded and imprecise, then that goes for those translated pages in missals so beloved by “traditionalists.”

 

[rfpapcun]

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.

First, traditionalists generally (not “some”) regard Holy Ghost as an identifier. They also regard unveiled women and women in pants as identifiers too. This is not too surprising considering the calumnies conservative Catholics heaped on them over the years as a result of the former’s appreciating, attending, and defending the Traditional Mass.

Second, your point about English speaking vis a vis Latin seems to disregard the use of liturgical language. Among other things, liturgical languages, which are very common throughout history, further the sacral nature of a ritual. Was it odd that Aramaic was the vernacular for Jesus, yet Hebrew was spoken in the synagogues?

 

[DavidPalm]

Again, very bad logic and somewhat bad history. The original switch to Latin WAS a switch out of Greek to the more common, vernacular Latin. Also, the Church HAS permitted the use of the vernacular throughout history. There is no demonstrable proof that the vernacular mass has caused significat harm, either, ie, “correlation does not prove causation.” Yes, the translations need to be tightened and that’s happening now. As for papal arguments about theological imprecision, I’m talking about the day in, day out use in the liturgy, not in theological education. You see, if the vernacular is inherently degraded and imprecise, then that goes for those translated pages in missals so beloved by “traditionalists.”

I too am talking about the day in, day out use in the liturgy. Not so with the myriad vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo. Those are official texts and the people do take their (limited) understand of the Mass right from those. And they are demonstrably defective. I would direct you, e.g., to an interesting article from Homiletic and Pastoral Review (not exactly a “rad trad” rag, I’m sure you’ll agree), by Professor William Sullivan. Here’s a summary statement from the article (he goes into considerable depth to demonstrate his point):

The general attitude among the hierarchy is that all resistance to the Novus Ordo is due to stubbornness or nostalgia and will inevitably die out with the older generation. Yet there are good reasons for this resistance. In fact, it is now possible to show on strictly scientific, statistically sound grounds that the Novus Ordo in the United States is several times unsatisfactory. Using the methods of linguistic and semiotic analysis it can be proved that the Novus Ordo is not merely badly translated but translated in a doctrinally unsound manner. More, I show that it is highly probable that the mistranslations are a deliberate attempt to subvert the Church in American in a Modernist direction. Worse, indications are that the attempt is succeeding. (“Translating the Novus Ordo Missae into good English”, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, May 1995, 49; emphasis mine.)