"Holy Spirit" vs. "Holy Ghost"

  • Thread starter Thread starter VanSensei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
babochka said:
Could you please explain this to me? I don’t want to derail the thread, but I really just don’t get it. I think I understand the desire to keep the liturgy of the Latin Rite in the Latin language, though I don’t agree. But what about prayers and everyday discussions about the truths of the faith in Latin?
Click to expand...
I think it’s interesting that even in the Latin Mass “Sabaoth” and “Kyrie eleison” were left untranslated (though I heard the Kyrie was actually going back to Greek.) Perhaps for the fear it would be misinterpreted or considered profane if translated? I could be wrong, though.

My reasoning is that proper names aren’t often translated. My mother’s maiden name means “scarf” but she wouldn’t change it to that when she became a U.S. citizen. Some involve transliterations but at least the pronunciations are left intact. So why are the three Persons of the Trinity changed to suit the Anglophones? Not trying to change the world here but just sayin.
In Church Slavonic, it is святой дух, which translates to either Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, but the word призрак would be used to specifically mean a specter or ghost (in Russian).
Click to expand...
FWIW, in Polish it’s “Duch” (dooh) which could be either spirit or ghost, though I still remember my mother watching a lot of ghost movies with us when I was an infant and calling them that.
Should we only stick to the original languages in all things, never offering a translation and thus only making them available to those well educated in the original language?
Click to expand...
We could do it the way it’s done in physics. For example, keep the four Maxwell equations in their Greek symbols, and work with them using universal math symbols but explain them in the vernacular. 😉
 
babochka said:
Wouldn’t Jesus (or Yeshua, if you will) be the proper name for the son?
Click to expand...
Good example. And it was written “IESVS” on the inscription on the cross, left untranslated for the most part in the modern languages, except to comply with some grammatical and linguistical rules.
 
ProVobis said:
Good example. And it was written “IESVS” on the inscription on the cross, left untranslated for the most part in the modern languages, except to comply with some grammatical and linguistical rules.
Click to expand...
But why do you put Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into the same category as a proper name? And why is it acceptable to you to translate them into Latin, but not into English. Shouldn’t we at least use Greek, as that was the language of the New Testament?
 
I still have my 1st. communion missal, from when I made my 1st. communion in 1964 when I was in the 2nd grade; it has Latin on one side and English on the other. The English translation says “Holy Ghost.” The next year we stopped using Latin @ mass, and @ first we said “ghost” latter it was changed to “spirit”.

*** I can still remember being told wen we were going to be using “spirit” instead of “ghost” from now on, because “ghost” gives some people the heebee jeebees.:rotfl::rotfl:***
 
babochka said:
But why do you put Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into the same category as a proper name? And why is it acceptable to you to translate them into Latin, but not into English. Shouldn’t we at least use Greek, as that was the language of the New Testament?
Click to expand...
Were they really “translated” into Latin? The Greeks and Romans had names for all their pagan gods. Was it a translation and/or redefinition which settled on the singular Deus? Ecclesiastical Latin doesn’t even have a plural for Deus.
 
babochka said:
But why do you put Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into the same category as a proper name? And why is it acceptable to you to translate them into Latin, but not into English. Shouldn’t we at least use Greek, as that was the language of the New Testament?
Click to expand...
For the sake of this discussion…

The Original Greek Gloria Patri:
Δόξα Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ καὶ Ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι,
καὶ νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.

Agio (Holy) Pnevmati (Spirit)
 
ProVobis said:
Were they really “translated” into Latin? The Greeks and Romans had names for all their pagan gods. Was it a translation and/or redefinition which settled on the singular Deus? Ecclesiastical Latin doesn’t even have a plural for Deus.
Click to expand...
But Deus is a name. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are descriptions of the persons of the Trinity. This discussion has gotten a bit silly, anyway. I really am interested in the question, though. Why do some traditionalists prefer to use the term Holy Ghost?
 
babochka said:
But Deus is a name. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are descriptions of the persons of the Trinity. This discussion has gotten a bit silly, anyway. I really am interested in the question, though. Why do some traditionalists prefer to use the term Holy Ghost?
Click to expand...
That is the real question. I would think that, from a traditional Latin Mass perspective, Spirit would be better than Ghost. A word originating from Latin should be more traditional than a word originating from Proto-German. :eek: 😉
 
ProVobis said:
Are you young enough not to remember the popular song “American Pie” written in 1971? 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, I wasn’t born in 1971, I was born in 1977, the year Star Wars came out in theatres. But, yes, I know the song…it’s iconic (and I have a degree in Music History & Theory).
 
Zekariya said:
A word originating from Latin should be more traditional than a word originating from Proto-German. :eek: 😉
Click to expand...
You have a good point there.

But then we would have a problem if we tried to do the same for “Sanctus.” Just sayin.
 
ProVobis said:
You have a good point there.

But then we would have a problem if we tried to do the same for “Sanctus.” Just sayin.
Click to expand...
lol We don’t use Sanctus in English. We do use both Ghost and Spirit in English. 🙂 I personally don’t mind either way. I do think that, logically, “Spirit” should be considered more traditional (by traditionalists) than “Ghost”. I don’t know why there is even a debate about this. 😃
 
babochka said:
But Deus is a name. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are descriptions of the persons of the Trinity. This discussion has gotten a bit silly, anyway. I really am interested in the question, though. Why do some traditionalists prefer to use the term Holy Ghost?
Click to expand...
I think it’s because some folks are just so unsettled by change, not just in things liturgical, but in all areas of life, especially if it involves something that they have done for quite a long time or something they were taught in childhood. I suggest that it is the more difficult with liturgy (and catechetics) though because having been taught that the tenets of our faith can never change, some (many?) believe that no elements of our liturgy or catechesis can or should ever change.

.
 
For some reason, even though I’m born way after the change, I love the term “Holy Ghost”. It’s practically unused by now, but certain old hymns have it. One of my favourite hymns is “Come Holy Ghost”. I don’t think there’s much of a difference anyway.
 
Holy Ghost is still used by many Catholics, though not in official English translations, and by some Anglican groups. The English word is more closely related to the contemporary German “Geist,” which means both spirit and the ghost of a dead person. In German one says “Im Namen des Vaters, und des Sohnes, und des Heiligen Geistes.”
 
I love reading old books where they speak of virtues that are good for the ghostly aspects of our being. [rather than spiritual].

Or to speak of death when we give up the ghost (spirit).

Or Romeo, to see his spiritual director:
Sleep dwell upon thine eyes, peace in thy breast!
Would I were sleep and peace, so sweet to rest!
Hence will I to my ghostly father’s cell,
His help to crave, and my dear hap to tell.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top