Holy Ghost vs Holy Spirit
#1
Sorry if it has been done before, I don't have a 'search the forum' function being a freebie pleb on the forum.

But really, it's as if the Trinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of Vatican 2, for some reason whenever I hear 'Holy Spirit' I get a visceral distaste for the subject matter. I grew up with Holy Ghost. Why the big change?

Really?

It's as if  the name 'Holy Ghost' was prohibited sometime after Paul VI assumed the papacy. Can anyone shed some light on this (more than a google search does?) I have a 1963 St. Joseph Daily Missal, and it it says 'Holy Spirit' throughout, though it's traditional liturgy, prayers, etc. The only time it says 'Holy Ghost' is in the Apostles Creed. All my other missals, pre-63, say 'Holy Ghost'.

Was there an official decree or something?
Reply
#2
Probably has to do with the ethnic translations into English. 

"Holy Ghost" is more similar to the German "Heiligen Geist"

Ghost and Spirit are somewhat interchangeable.  But Spirit at least in English has a few more connotations while "Ghost" has more of an identification with a person.

With that said, I"m sure "Spirit" was used in order to create associations in the minds of people to conflate God with their particular agenda.

Reply
#3
Hmm, I guess "Spiritu Sanctii" is translated easier into 'Holy Spirit'

but I've heard through a priest that 'Holy Ghost" was used to differentiate the third person of the Trinity, as opposed to the 'Spirit' of the Father, so as a clear distinction is made...





Reply
#4
Dr. Taylor Marshall posted an informative article on the subject a few months ago on his blog:

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/05/shou...pirit.html
Reply
#5
(12-20-2012, 01:39 PM)MRose Wrote: Dr. Taylor Marshall posted an informative article on the subject a few months ago on his blog:

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/05/shou...pirit.html

That was a good article, thanks. "'Holy Ghost' being the secret handshake of traditionalists". Heh.


It'd be great to see a return to the older term. Being Spiritual, spirituality etc SoVii... the word spirit if just a little too... mushy. We Catholics need more character and identity.
Reply
#6
(12-20-2012, 12:24 PM)three_emcees_and_onedeacon Wrote: Sorry if it has been done before, I don't have a 'search the forum' function being a freebie pleb on the forum.

But really, it's as if the Trinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of Vatican 2, for some reason whenever I hear 'Holy Spirit' I get a visceral distaste for the subject matter. I grew up with Holy Ghost. Why the big change?

Really?

It's as if  the name 'Holy Ghost' was prohibited sometime after Paul VI assumed the papacy. Can anyone shed some light on this (more than a google search does?) I have a 1963 St. Joseph Daily Missal, and it it says 'Holy Spirit' throughout, though it's traditional liturgy, prayers, etc. The only time it says 'Holy Ghost' is in the Apostles Creed. All my other missals, pre-63, say 'Holy Ghost'.

Was there an official decree or something?
  I have the St. Andrew Missal of 1962 and it has Holy Spirit..  According to Bishop Sheen, Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are interchangeable
Reply
#7
Here's a repost of some stuff I wrote on a prevous thread:

In itself there is no difference. They are synonyms. Ghost is Germanic, and is the older word, while spirit is French, and came into English with the Norman invasion. The earliest attested use of Holy Spirit in the Oxford English Dictioanry is 1300 -- Þe hali spirite oute of him spac. = The Holy Spirit out of him spoke. There was a definite shift in the post-VII era to Holy Spirit, but this was merely an effect of the new ecumenical direction. Holy Spirit was used much more often by Protestants in the pre-VII era, but not exclusively. Holy Ghost now is mostly an archaism (or fossilized phrase, similar to one like "give up the ghost"), because it is the only instance in which we use ghost like this. We see this whenever we have "ghost" used by itself. We'll always replace it with spirit. Example: "And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the desert." He wasn't led out by the ghost. So in itself, there is no difference, but statements like the above make the connection easier between the two. Unfortunately, by some, Holy Spirit is seen as some kind of heresy, or brands you as liberal. That doesn't help anything. And you'll notice books in the VII era having ghost on one page and spirit on another, or varying usage on one page! I say pick one, and stick with it, unless you are having a conversation and you want to adopt the other person's convention.

...

It is a fossilized use. We say something is "ghastly" or "I am aghast". These are faint shadows of a once common word. Once spirit came in from Norman French, there were distinctions that needed to be made. Either one term went away, or one term took a high connotation (usually the French), and the other took a low or common connotation (usually the English), or they split up the pie of meanings (you take this meaning, and I'll take this one). We see this on almost every level of English. By the 1300s most of the French was assimilated and truly became English.  In the case of Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit, we can't make a distinction because it is the same person. So what is actually the distinction now with many people is essentially High Church/Low Church. "I'm more traditional than you." Usually when people say they prefer Holy Ghost, either they don't know why, or they say it is more "traditional" and the other more "novel". It is really a linguistic phenomenon set before the backdrop of religion. We can see some parallels with latinate/hebraized names (Isaias/Isaiah; Jonas/Jonah), or with referring to Jesus as the Christ, or the Messiah.

...

You can refer to the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic (both ruah), Greek (pneuma), and Latin (spiritus), and see in every case in which the Holy Ghost is referred to, or probably referred to, there is no variation in the original, so the variation is produced in our language, not in the theology of the Church.
Reply
#8
(12-20-2012, 03:25 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Here's a repost of some stuff I wrote on a prevous thread:

In itself there is no difference. They are synonyms. Ghost is Germanic, and is the older word, while spirit is French, and came into English with the Norman invasion. The earliest attested use of Holy Spirit in the Oxford English Dictioanry is 1300 -- Þe hali spirite oute of him spac. = The Holy Spirit out of him spoke. There was a definite shift in the post-VII era to Holy Spirit, but this was merely an effect of the new ecumenical direction. Holy Spirit was used much more often by Protestants in the pre-VII era, but not exclusively. Holy Ghost now is mostly an archaism (or fossilized phrase, similar to one like "give up the ghost"), because it is the only instance in which we use ghost like this. We see this whenever we have "ghost" used by itself. We'll always replace it with spirit. Example: "And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the desert." He wasn't led out by the ghost. So in itself, there is no difference, but statements like the above make the connection easier between the two. Unfortunately, by some, Holy Spirit is seen as some kind of heresy, or brands you as liberal. That doesn't help anything. And you'll notice books in the VII era having ghost on one page and spirit on another, or varying usage on one page! I say pick one, and stick with it, unless you are having a conversation and you want to adopt the other person's convention.

...

It is a fossilized use. We say something is "ghastly" or "I am aghast". These are faint shadows of a once common word. Once spirit came in from Norman French, there were distinctions that needed to be made. Either one term went away, or one term took a high connotation (usually the French), and the other took a low or common connotation (usually the English), or they split up the pie of meanings (you take this meaning, and I'll take this one). We see this on almost every level of English. By the 1300s most of the French was assimilated and truly became English.  In the case of Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit, we can't make a distinction because it is the same person. So what is actually the distinction now with many people is essentially High Church/Low Church. "I'm more traditional than you." Usually when people say they prefer Holy Ghost, either they don't know why, or they say it is more "traditional" and the other more "novel". It is really a linguistic phenomenon set before the backdrop of religion. We can see some parallels with latinate/hebraized names (Isaias/Isaiah; Jonas/Jonah), or with referring to Jesus as the Christ, or the Messiah.

...

You can refer to the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic (both ruah), Greek (pneuma), and Latin (spiritus), and see in every case in which the Holy Ghost is referred to, or probably referred to, there is no variation in the original, so the variation is produced in our language, not in the theology of the Church.

Good post. I guess I will have to learn to grin and bear it, even though it is an unfortunate attitude to take. I still think it was implemented to disassociate people with the proper usage, to make it seem (and by association all pre-Vii texts) a little too old-fashioned to take seriously? Who knows. My little conspiracy theory.
Reply
#9
Its a trad secret handshake.  You say ghost so other trads know you are in the same cool club as them.
Reply
#10
(12-20-2012, 02:02 PM)three_emcees_and_onedeacon Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 01:39 PM)MRose Wrote: Dr. Taylor Marshall posted an informative article on the subject a few months ago on his blog:

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/05/shou...pirit.html

That was a good article, thanks. "'Holy Ghost' being the secret handshake of traditionalists". Heh.
You are welcome. I enjoy that part too, and amongst neo-Catholics and modernists, I have noticed that they associate Holy Ghost with Tradition too, interestingly enough.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)