"Holy Ghost" versus "Holy Spirit"?

[JKirkLVNV]

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.
Yes, I know. My point was that the fact that they regard that as an “identifier” is ridiculous.

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?

We do not know that the people did not also understand Hebrew. Koine Greek was also used in the time of Christ.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.)

This sounds like an an opinion (ie, the word “probable”). Does the Roman Canon in English mislead people, merely because it’s in English? And anyway, steps have been taken to insure better translations. I assume thereby that the Holy See has some hope for the vernacular Mass.

 

[DavidPalm]

I wrote:

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.

What I meant to include in there is a statement that everybody knows that the side translations in missals for the traditional Latin Mass are not official liturgical texts. Not so with the myriad vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo…etc.

This sounds like an an opinion (ie, the word “probable”).

What he actually said was, “I show that it is highly probable…” I don’t think it’s a very strong reply to dismiss this as a mere opinion. But you should read the article and decide for yourself if he makes a persuasive case.

Does the Roman Canon in English mislead people, merely because it’s in English?

Merely because it’s in English? No, of course not. But if it’s badly translated into English, or French, or German, or Swahili, or whatever, then of course it’s misleading. And that’s one serious problem with the vernacular. It has demonstrably been used in any number of countries as a means by which to foist a modernist theological agenda onto the Catholics in those countries. And, as you have essentially admitted, the Vatican’s oversight was not sufficient to prevent that. Now they plan on fixing it; that’s nice. But it’s been forty years of praying with defective translations that affect peoples’ perception of the Faith. And it still goes on every Sunday. You may dismiss that lightly. I don’t.

I think it’s reasonable, then, to side with the pre-conciliar Popes who argued against such widespread use of the vernacular in the Roman liturgy, one of their most important reasons being precisely the potential for theological imprecision and even error. They were right to resist the trend. It is good for people to understand the Mass. But as the Popes called for and as you have acknowledged, catechesis would provide all the understanding the people need to understand the Mass. The vernacular isn’t necessary for that.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Agreed. As has the study of Latin and even English.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

No need for any committees to change the words of the TLM.

 

[ProVobis]

Again, very bad logic and somewhat bad history.

Why do your posts start in such a hostile manner, may I ask? Is vernacular that tough to sell?

 

[Bejohn]

I have read every post in this thread because I too have wondered about the meaning of Ghost versus Spirit and the origin of each.
As was noted by one poster speculation without research or proof is not valid and so my posting can be judged to be invalid and no one who desires a ‘proof’ need read farther.
However for what it is worth (nothing) my thought has been that like goodby was originally (so I believe without personal research but have heard or read from others) May God Be With Ye that over the years has lost the God to become good and the be with Ye to by meaning ???
With all this useless information in place I was led to the self led understanding that Holy Ghost stood for Holy God Host for from Augustin or Aguinas, I am not sure which, we are told that the Holy Ghost/Spirit shares all with the Father including His Fatherhood and all with the Son including His Sonhood while the Father shares all with the Son except His Fatherhood for the Son has never been a Father and likewise the Son shares all with the Father except His Sonhood for the Father has never been a Son.
Eueka! Therefore the Holy Ghost is the only Good Host (shortened to Ghost) who truly is fully the God Host (shortened to Ghost) containing all of both Father, Son and even Self while, beyond our understanding, remaining a totally separate Being fully joined inand to The Holy Trinity. And yet Jesus in some private revelations I have read and perhaps even in accepted Scriptural writings (I am still too lazy to do the research) reveals the Holy Spirit that we have is the same Spirit shared by Him and His Father.
I use both but prefer Holy Ghost.
Is there no EXPERT who can once and for all end our own foolish speculation and give some definite RESEARCHED answer? I would really like to have this question answered intelligently by someone who KNOWS what he/she is talking about and not by someone such as myself who is only guessing and speculating.