Is it the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost?

[corsair]

I agree, Leon. The FSSP parish that I go to uses the term “Holy Ghost” with an ocassional “Holy Spirit” thrown in.

 

[Bran_Stark]

I strongly prefer “Holy Ghost”, for several reasons.

First of all, I think that having three instead of four syllables tends to flow much nicer in speech and music. “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” is a very natural progression, concluding with a strong and confident-sounding sound, instead of the wimpy “feminine ending” of “spirit”.

And as far as the meanings go, it is true that “Ghost” tends to bring up the image of death. But even in this sense, a “ghost” is a very specific creature - the presence of one particular deceased person. The word “spirit”, however, can be very vague and impersonal. For example, we say “the spirit of the times”, but we would never say “the ghost of the times”. So I think the phrase Holy Ghost can be a guard against any heretical notions that the Holy Spirit is some force or energy or effect or abstract thought, instead of a wholly distinct Person of the Trinity.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

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 have a feeling there are people out there who say “Spirit” just because they fear that “Ghost” is some kind of evil trad conspiracy .

 

[Leon_Bloy]

I have a feeling there are people out there who say “Spirit” just because they fear that “Ghost” is some kind of evil trad conspiracy .

Maybe, but it’s been at least fifty years now that most English-speaking Catholics have used “Spirit.”

I wouldn’t change any hymn lyrics or anything, but why continue to insist on using it today?

I love the older rites and traditions. But they run the risk of becoming museum pieces if we lock them up in 1955. Newer translations of the Latin were always done in the old days… if we are going to bother translating, like I was saying, let’s translate. Otherwise let’s keep everything in Latin, which is fine by me.

There’s nothing more traditional in Catholicism than acting like tradition is still alive. I think that people who insist on changing “Spirit” back to Ghost in the EF/TLM can perhaps themselves be buying into the “pre/post-Vatican II” mentality just as much as anybody. Like I and others wrote here earlier, people said “Spirit” in the old days, too. Even in Latin mass missals and in the Baltimore Catechism.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I really like saying Holy Spirit but I’m not opposed to Holy Ghost.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Maybe, but it’s been at least fifty years now that most English-speaking Catholics have used “Spirit.”

I wouldn’t change any hymn lyrics or anything, but why continue to insist on using it today?

I love the older rites and traditions. But they run the risk of becoming museum pieces if we lock them up in 1955. Newer translations of the Latin were always done in the old days… if we are going to bother translating, like I was saying, let’s translate. Otherwise let’s keep everything in Latin, which is fine by me.

There’s nothing more traditional in Catholicism than acting like tradition is still alive. I think that people who insist on changing “Spirit” back to Ghost in the EF/TLM are themselves buying into the “pre/post-Vatican II” mentality just as much as anybody. Like I and others wrote here earlier, people said “Spirit” in the old days, too. Even in Latin mass missals and in the Baltimore Catechism.

I mostly agree with you, I was just being a smart ***! Sorry .

 

[Leon_Bloy]

I mostly agree with you, I was just being a smart ***! Sorry .

No problem

I get easily impassioned on these forums, like a lot of us.

Hope things are well in New York… you have a great bishop.

 

[Big_Feet]

Both, either, or, and!

 

[ProVobis]

I strongly prefer “Holy Ghost”, for several reasons.

First of all, I think that having three instead of four syllables tends to flow much nicer in speech and music. “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” is a very natural progression, concluding with a strong and confident-sounding sound, instead of the wimpy “feminine ending” of “spirit”.

And as far as the meanings go, it is true that “Ghost” tends to bring up the image of death. But even in this sense, a “ghost” is a very specific creature - the presence of one particular deceased person. The word “spirit”, however, can be very vague and impersonal. For example, we say “the spirit of the times”, but we would never say “the ghost of the times”. So I think the phrase Holy Ghost can be a guard against any heretical notions that the Holy Spirit is some force or energy or effect or abstract thought, instead of a wholly distinct Person of the Trinity.

This is not to challenge you but I always found it interesting that in the EF, Sancificator is used to refer to the Third Person of the Trinity, but sancificetur in the Pater Noster is translated as “hallowed” and not “sanctified.” I guess there are certain words that just stick.

 

[TimothyH]

The word spirit is used in the context of the Eucharist.

It is important that we get it right.

Understanding how the words ruah, pneuma and spiritus are used in the Bible tells us what it should be - spirit or ghost - and translating it correctly has profound implications for how we interpret some very important parts of scripture, including John 6.

***In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind *swept over the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2, NAB)

***…and the Spirit of God *was moving over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2, RSV)

The NAB renders “Mighty Wind” while the RSV renders “Spirit of God.” Two different translations are given to illustrate the synonymous nature moving air (mighty wind) and the Spirit of God.

…the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

In the second creation account, God breathes “The breath of life” into man who becomes “A living being.” There is an undeniable causational relationship between the “breath” of the divine being and life in man; God’s breath - the blowing of air into man’s nostrils - is that which causes man to live. In the very first book of the Bible we see the movement of air, God’s breath, his Spirit, the “Might wind” which hovered over the waters, was the force which not only gave man his very life but was the catalyst for the creation of the entire universe in which man lives.

Then he said to me: Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man! Say to the breath: Thus says the Lord GOD: From the four winds come, O breath, and breathe into these slain that they may come to life. (Ezekiel 37:9-10)

In the prophecy of the dry bones, Ezekiel is told by God to command “The breath” (ruah) to come into the bones. The breath comes form the “Four winds” and the bones come to life.

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. … The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

Jesus makes a direct comparison of the nature of wind with the action of the Holy Spirit in man. Catholics know this passage as a reference to the beginning of a Christians spiritual life through baptism. Wind blowing is compared to being “Born of the spirit”, similar to the way man was given life in Genesis 2 and the bones came to life in Ezekiel 37. Ever see a baptism where the deacon or priest breathes on the infant three times? It gives me goosbumpts when I see it.

When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. (Acts 2:1-4)

There’s the image of wind again, the breath of God giving life to the Church!

The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit." Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:19-23)

The Word of God which became flesh literally breathes the Holy Spirit into the Apostles. Note that the gift of the Holy Spirit which is given to the Apostles allows them to forgive sins and thereby bring others back to spiritual life (to a state of sanctifying grace).

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

Throughout the Bible, the word “Spirit” is used to signify the very breath of God, the Holy Spirit, and spiritual life. And Jesus’ words at the end of the Bread of Life discourse are no different. We are told that Jesus means “Spiritual” in this passage and not literal. But looking at the use of the word ruah, pneuma and spiritus - spirit - throughout the Bible shows that it is clearly a life giving force, and that is exactly what Jesus tells us. His words are spirit, life itself!

At Mass, during the epiclesis, the priest actually calls down the Holy Spirit. He holds his hands above the bread and wine and says,

***Let your spirit come upon these gifts so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ… ***

That’s the ressurection of life right there on the altar. That’s the same ressurection which occured on Easter, taking place right there in front of us. The holy Spirit gives divine life and the bread and wine becomes Jesus, brought to life right there on the altar.

To me the word “Spirit” is Eucharistic. It is a life giving force, the very breath of God which blows life into all of creation and into each of us in a variety of ways through the sacraments. We even say so in the creed.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life…

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

This is not to challenge you but I always found it interesting that in the EF, Sancificator is used to refer to the Third Person of the Trinity, but sancificetur in the Pater Noster is translated as “hallowed” and not “sanctified.” I guess there are certain words that just stick.

Correction: that should read Sanctificator.

Veni, sanctificator omnipotens æterne Deus: et benedic hoc sacrificium, tuo sancto nomini preparatum. (“Come, Sanctifier almighty eternal God: and bless this sacrifice, to Your prepared holy name.”)

And sanctificetur.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

Personally, I prefer the words “Holy Spirit,” for many of the reasons here. But mainly because “ghost” implies something dead and “spirit” implies life.

 

[PJM]

=Agape11;9107277]the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost, and why?

YES!

The Holy Ghost has evolved into the Holy Spirit with the Identical Understanding.

 

[Bran_Stark]

This is not to challenge you but I always found it interesting that in the EF, Sancificator is used to refer to the Third Person of the Trinity, but sancificetur in the Pater Noster is translated as “hallowed” and not “sanctified.” I guess there are certain words that just stick.

Haha well this is what makes English so beautiful. For so many different things we have a choice between a direct Germanic word which, like “hallow” and “ghost”, or a more refined and technical Latinate word, like “sanctify” or “spirit”. I guess you might say the German ones speak to the heart, and the Latin ones to the mind.

 

[57Bill]

I’m a cradle Catholic. I’m in my late, very late 40’s. I was raised to say Holy Ghost. I don’t think God is as interested in semantics as some of the leaglists on this site.

just add a few years to that late, very late 40’s for me.

 

[ProVobis]

For so many different things we have a choice between a direct Germanic word which, like “hallow” and “ghost”,

OTOH, as I was learning English (Polish is my first language) “hallow” sounded too much like “hollow” and thus I avoided using it in prayer. I imagine one learning English today would have a tough time with “Holy Ghost.”

the German ones speak to the heart…

Do barbarians have hearts?

 

[Yitong]

Much food for thought:thumbsup:

A friend of mine just ask me about this and, on the top of my mind, I said they are basically the same, then he responded :“so, does that mean ‘God is a Ghost’ (quoting from John’s)?”

 

[Rich_C]

As far as I know, both forms have been used in English prayer for hundreds of years, only one or the other has been more dominant at any given time. I think they’re both fine; I say “Holy Spirit” most of the time out of habit (raised that way) and “Holy Ghost” during the Angelus (memorized it from an old holy card, so its habit).

My friends like to joke that saying ‘Holy Ghost’ is the trad secret handshake.

 

[Evan]

I use both, alternately. But I know the words

Father

Son

Holy Ghost

have a Germanic linguistic background whereas

Paternal

Filial

Saintly Spirit

have a Latin linguistic background.

So you could say Father, Son, Holy Ghost or
Paternal one , Filial one , Saintly Spirit.

 

[porthos11]

There is no difference and whether to use one or the other in one’s prayers’ is completely up to preference.

English takes its roots from German, Latin and some Greek. “Ghost” is simply from the German geist, while Spirit is from the Latin spiritus, which means the same thing, i.e. breath, wind. The two words are absolute synonyms.