A
Agape11
Guest
the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost, and why?
- Status
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: I perfer the Holy Ghost because that’s how the third person of the Trinity has been called in English from the beginning. It makes no difference Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is the same. I suppose it was changed to Holy Spirit because ghost has a negative meaning today.
E
englishredrose
Guest
In the Church of England
We used to say Spirit in the morning and Ghost in the evening. But that has changed some time ago
But its the same essence of the Trinity whether you say Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.
We used to say Spirit in the morning and Ghost in the evening. But that has changed some time ago
But its the same essence of the Trinity whether you say Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.
G
GEddie
Guest
A very knowlegeable priest has told me that roughly 200 years ago, the word “spirit” had spooky and frightening connotations, while “ghost” sounded more normal, and so “Holy Ghost” came into usage.
100 years ago, the words’ meaning in effect reversed, and prayers were rewritten to say “Holy Spirit”.
But basically the words are the same.
ICXC NIKA
100 years ago, the words’ meaning in effect reversed, and prayers were rewritten to say “Holy Spirit”.
But basically the words are the same.
ICXC NIKA
A
alwayslooking
Guest
From what I understand ‘Holy Spirit’ is a more accurate translation into English (although not being a linguist I could be wrong).
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
If Ghost got changed to Spirit 100 years ago, how come I was taught Holy Ghost by my parents, the Sisters of St. Joseph and Jesuit priests in the 1940’s? It is my understanding that in the US it was changed post V II.
I still am not comfortable with “Spirit” and still use Holy Ghost in my personal prayers.
I still am not comfortable with “Spirit” and still use Holy Ghost in my personal prayers.
S
Saintlucy
Guest
I still say “Holy Ghost” when I make the sign of the Cross. Just habit. It changed here after Vatican II. When I go to Confession the priest must think, “She’s showing her age!” 
English speakers said “Ghost” because our word for spirit comes from the German “Geist” and not from the Latin “Spiritus”.
English speakers said “Ghost” because our word for spirit comes from the German “Geist” and not from the Latin “Spiritus”.
B
Big_Ro
Guest
I’m a cradle Catholic. I’m in my late, very late 40’s. 
I was raised to say Holy Ghost. As my children continue on their journey as catholics, it has been brought to my attention that Spirit is proper. I don’t think God is as interested in semantics as some of the leaglists on this site.
I was raised to say Holy Ghost. As my children continue on their journey as catholics, it has been brought to my attention that Spirit is proper. I don’t think God is as interested in semantics as some of the leaglists on this site.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
The 1898 Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that “many religious writers now prefer the name Holy Spirit, owing to the associations suggested to certain minds by the word ghost.” As I understand it, the shift was partly to get away from the “phantasm” meaning of “Ghost,” and partly to get closer to the Latin, where the word is Spiritus. (“Ghost” is from a Saxon/German root, rather than the Latin, and preferred by some old-line Protestants for that reason.)
The original Greek word is pneuma, referring to a breath or breathing, like the breath of God in Genesis. Jerome’s translation into Latin was spiritus, a word that likewise refers to breathing, as we can see from its presence as a root of English words like respiration. Early English translations, however, including most famously the KJV, eschewed a Latinate translation for “ghost,” which comes to us from German geist (which we have more directly in words like “poltergeist” and “Zeitgeist”). Geist came from a root gast, Saxon if I recall correctly, which, like spiritus, referred to breath. We see gast in the English words “aghast” and “flabbergast,” which ultimately mean having one’s breath taken away.
So it’s breath all the way down. My personal preference is for “spirit” which is closer to the Latin and does not carry irrelevant, eerie, “ghostly” connotations. On the other hand, “ghost” has a heavier history of usage in English, though that is mostly due to how thoroughly customary English usage was shaped by the Protestants, their penchant for Germanicisms, and the KJV.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
“Spirit” is both theologically and linguistically more correct. The root word of “spirit” is breath – as in respiration, inspiration, etc. Romance languages such as Spanish and Italian have always used the equivalent of “Spirit” for the 3rd Person. And Latin: Et cum spiritu tuo." - And with your spirit. It connotes the Holy Spirit as the “breath of God,” God as close to us as our own breath as it were. English being a Germanic language, “spirit” came across as “ghost.” Remember where in the Gospel Jesus “breathed” on the apostles? The idea of “Holy Spirit” seems far more consistent with our deeper traditions and teaching than does “ghost.”
P
ProVobis
Guest
“Spirit” is a cognate of Spiritus, which means “breathing, breath, breeze.” It isn’t necessarily the best translation. The Polish use “Duch.” To me it doesn’t matter which translation is used because Spiritus Sanctus is still the official designation.
T
tradcathconvert
Guest
I use Holy Ghost, but have no problem with Holy Spirit. It was interesting with two priests who used to be available to say our EF Mass for us. One always used Holy Ghost. The other used Spirit more then Ghost.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I’m so glad I worship in French. We use Saint-Esprit or Esprit Saint depending on context. Direct translation from the Latin. We don’t say “le saint phantôme!” or “le phantôme saint”!
One less debate over semantics to worry about.
One less debate over semantics to worry about.
B
Big_Ro
Guest
Awesome. So awesome!!
J
JReducation
Guest
It’s really a cultural issue, not liturgical one.
There an issue here that does affect us and that’s the matter of unity. All 23 Catholic Churches say Spirit. The only ones who said Ghost were the English speakers in the Latin Church. The English speakers in the Latin Church make up about 5% of Catholics. All liturgical and prayer books were translated to use the same wording as all other Catholics.
From a theological perspective, spirit, as we understand it today, makes more sense than ghost as we understand it today. In today’s language, ghost is some kind of phantasm. That’s not what the Scriptures mean when they use the word, Spirit.
The believe of the Church is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. If you think of it in the Greek,breadth, that makes sense. Whereas to say that a ghost proceeds form the Father and the Son does not match the Greek. A ghost is a thing. It does not proceed from persons. However, breadth does come from persons. Breadth is a sign of life. Living beings breath, even plants.
Using the Greek, one would say that the Holy Breadth proceeds from the Father and the Son. Breadth in modern language would be Spirit.
Some people are allergic to Holy Spirit, because it became popular in English after Vatican II. Their prejudices toward Vatican II affect their language. That’s kind of goofy. Language is what it is, with or without Vatican II.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
MarkThompson
Guest
That’s not quite fair; “ghost” is simply a Germanic word for “spirit.” By those lights, one might as well say that the Greek churches do not say “spirit” but rather “pneuma” instead.
That gives a whole new meaning to “there’s a wideness in God’s mercy,” doesn’t it?
Indeed.
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
I actually feel strongly about this, lol.
I am bothered when people think it’s some “post-Vatican II” thing, as in “something’s wrong with it.”
When I (often) attend the Extraordinary Form mass, I use a vintage hand missal I got from an old used book store, published before Vatican II, which uses “Holy Spirit.”
To me, the issue is that the name is a translation. *When and if *we want to translate, we should be correct, but also it should make actual sense to people in present-day English. Otherwise, why not just read it in Latin? “Spirit” is both more literal, and, I think, more correct in its sense.
I have a feeling there are people out there who say “Ghost” just because they fear that “Spirit” is some kind of modernist heresy.
I am bothered when people think it’s some “post-Vatican II” thing, as in “something’s wrong with it.”
When I (often) attend the Extraordinary Form mass, I use a vintage hand missal I got from an old used book store, published before Vatican II, which uses “Holy Spirit.”
To me, the issue is that the name is a translation. *When and if *we want to translate, we should be correct, but also it should make actual sense to people in present-day English. Otherwise, why not just read it in Latin? “Spirit” is both more literal, and, I think, more correct in its sense.
I have a feeling there are people out there who say “Ghost” just because they fear that “Spirit” is some kind of modernist heresy.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Thanks for laying out this excellent explanation! I was coming here to say something similar in a much shorter, probably not as clear way.
P
ProVobis
Guest
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
Lol, I agree - that solves all kinds of problems, doesn’t it? Then all the translations we do are entirely done mentally, and we don’t have to argue about them.
- Status