Author Topic: Holy Ghost versus Holy Spirit. (Read 963 times)

parentsfortruth · « **on:** June 12, 2010, 04:59:18 PM »

Yes, I know, I know. It seems rather insignificant, but--

I have been reading about this Aleister Crowley fellow (lots of occultic and masonic connections) and he had a school that he called: "Collegium ad Spiritum Sanctum," The College of the Holy Spirit.

I mean, the NO church always uses the HS term. Do you know when this widely changed or were some people always calling the third person of the trinity Holy Spirit during prayers?

Also more alarming was his mockery of the Holy Eucharist in the occult. The "Cake of Light?"

:scared2:

These magic shows, people, please keep your children far away from all of them. Books, shows, television. It's filth.

Alexandria · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2010, 05:02:57 PM »

I was taught to say Holy Ghost. After VII, the term changed to Holy Spirit. Now, it's just "Spirit". Can't imagine why they dropped the "Holy", can you? :rolleyes:

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2010, 05:03:23 PM »

What is said in Latin?

We say Ghost, but Ghost is a term with the wrong connotation in English. We aren't talking about what is ordinarily called a "ghost."

The danger with using the word Spirit is that it might take some modernist connotation.

But Spirit is a fine word, that conveys what is meant, and is cognate with the Latin.

There is no compelling reason not to use it except to be old-fashioned as a matter of principle.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2010, 07:20:47 PM »

I also prefer the Latinate Holy Spirit. Ghost in modern-day English parlance definitely has some weird connotations that it didn't have back in the day. I also don't like the fact that the Pentecostalists use it so much. When I pray on my own in English, I always use Spirit, but feel as though I have to use Ghost among Traditional Catholics lest I be considered a modernist.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2010, 11:57:21 PM »

Yes, they are both justifiable.

Spirit = from Latin, "Spiritus"
Ghost = from German "Geist"

Holy in Latin is Sanctus, whereas it's Heilege in German.

So Holy Ghost is completely Germanic, where Holy Spirit comes from German AND Latin.

But it's true that Traditional Catholics use "Holy Ghost" exclusively, as a way to identify themselves. There's nothing wrong with that, and in fact it's a good idea. If we drop everything that isn't "necessary", how would we ever know we're talking to another trad. Catholic?

I'm inclined more and more to defend the Amish way of dealing with the World. They, too, have a religion that's incompatible with the modern world.

Matthew

Jamie · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2010, 01:48:52 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

What is said in Latin?

We say Ghost, but Ghost is a term with the wrong connotation in English. We aren't talking about what is ordinarily called a "ghost."

The danger with using the word Spirit is that it might take some modernist connotation.

But Spirit is a fine word, that conveys what is meant, and is cognate with the Latin.

There is no compelling reason not to use it except to be old-fashioned as a matter of principle.

And to use nicer English - in good poetry and writing a preference is given to germanic words over romance words. Therefore, Holy Ghost was the traditional translation into English of spiritus.

Here is an example that I think objectively shows that germanic root words produce better English sentences:

The British attempted to destroy the Colonial uprising in America. (Attempt, and destroy both have romance origins.)

A better sentence would be:

The British fought to crush the Colonial uprising in America. (Fought, and crush are both germanic in origin.)