Some time ago, there was a thread that was locked that was about the change after Vatican II, in the English speaking world, from the common usage of Holy "Ghost" to Holy "Spirit".

There was a passage from the Freemason Eliphas Levi quoted there that I wish I could find again. I can't remember who posted it.

The statements from Levi were similar in tone to Isaac Newton's concluding paragraph of the "Principia". Isaac Newton was an alchemist and along the lines of a Freemason or "Rosicrucian". Don't know much about the "Rosicrucians", but Newton was a secretive occult sort of Royal Society fellow.

I was only hoping somebody had the Eliphas Levi source to compare with the "Principia."

This is the conclusion of the "Principia":

"... and to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our seas.

And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle Spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which Spirit the particles of bodies mutually attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighbouring corpusles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely by the vibrations of this Spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain , and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic Spirit operates."

It is evident that in Newton's theories the "force of gravity" is an occult "Spirit". It is my opinion that Newtonian "gravity" is not even a force but science fiction.

Even as science fiction, however, there could be something harmful lurking there, like whatever strange conjurations of an Eliphas Levi type.

As far as I'm aware, 'Ghost' was abandoned because it was too 'scary.'  'Spirit' was more 'pastoral.'  However, Holy Spirit isn't a mistranslation.  It may have been employed for insidious reasons, and I've never used it (and wouldn't) but it certainly isn't false on it's own merits.  

You don't believe in gravity?

I don't have an issue with the usage of the term "Spirit", except as a question of intent. Others alerted me to this topic.

The quote from Levi that I saw before is what I'm looking for. Maybe it wil turn up again here?

I'll pray a little to St. Jude and St. Anthony.

Of course, I do not believe in Newton's theory of "gravity". "Gravity" is an attractive word to people, and being an atttractive word, it seems to create for some an "attractive force", like "gravitas".

"Gravitas" is a good word too. In Latin, you know, it means "weight". Of course, I do acknowledge that weight exists, and it may exert force, as it operates with density; but I do not accept Newton's theories at all.

For one, recall that the earth is a sphere of unique density, and gravity is not a lateral force. Since gravity is not a lateral force and the earth is a sphere, it is not a vertical one either.

The only way "gravity" could operate as an exclusively vertical force is if the earth were flat, but the earth is not flat.

Of course, it is a sphere created by the power of God. As Gregory the Great said, "telluris ingens conditor terram dedisti immobilem".

...I've asked elderly Catholics about this (all of whom have passed away now) and, without exception, they have told me that they heard both terms used even in the 1930s and 1940s.  None of them really thought anything of it at the time.  The terms were completely interchangeable.

That is not my father's experience.  He said when he was growing up (1930's & '40s), Catholics used the term "Holy Ghost" and protestants "Holy Spirit."  (as a general rule; as you point out, nothing wrong with using the latter, for example, in the hymn Holy God We Praise Thy Name to fit the song)  I think the change to using the term "Spirit" was all part of the same modernizing, protestantizing trend to prepare for Vatican II, as was the other example you mentioned, the abandonment of "thee" and "thou".  In comparing Latin-English missals, the changes were introduced in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and also included changing the translations in other ways. They always start out with things that are "not doctrinal" - so if you complain or ask, "why change?" you are a crazy fanatic.  It is happening now in Post Falls, with the elimination of the cross-bearer and prayers at the end of Low Mass - when these things are pointed out to parishioners there, they just say, "it's not doctrinal; not that big a deal."

I suspect the use of the different terms may have begun more regionally.  I have heard what PAT317 and bowler said but not from primary sources (which is why I didn't report it) but only from individuals who were told this by others.

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of any of these stories so it may be that all are more or less true according to individual experiences.  Those experiences would have been in many diverse places in the English-speaking world.

In any case, the term "Holy Ghost" is, today, the definite preferred term for the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity in English-speaking traditional Catholic circles.

Quote from: TKGS

...I've asked elderly Catholics about this (all of whom have passed away now) and, without exception, they have told me that they heard both terms used even in the 1930s and 1940s.  None of them really thought anything of it at the time.  The terms were completely interchangeable.

That is not my father's experience.  He said when he was growing up (1930's & '40s), Catholics used the term "Holy Ghost" and protestants "Holy Spirit."  (as a general rule; as you point out, nothing wrong with using the latter, for example, in the hymn Holy God We Praise Thy Name to fit the song)  I think the change to using the term "Spirit" was all part of the same modernizing, protestantizing trend to prepare for Vatican II, as was the other example you mentioned, the abandonment of "thee" and "thou".  In comparing Latin-English missals, the changes were introduced in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and also included changing the translations in other ways. They always start out with things that are "not doctrinal" - so if you complain or ask, "why change?" you are a crazy fanatic.  It is happening now in Post Falls, with the elimination of the cross-bearer and prayers at the end of Low Mass - when these things are pointed out to parishioners there, they just say, "it's not doctrinal; not that big a deal."

I was a Pentecostal of the Southern variety.  Holy Ghost was the preferred title.  As in "I was filled by the Holy Ghost."  When someone spoke passively about inspiration, the often said "I was moved by the Spirit or the Spirit moved me."

Methodists and Baptists use the term Holy Spirit.  I know nothing about mainstream Protestants.

I agree now, that these terms are more political than anything else.

You can know immediately who is a traditional Catholic and who is not when they pray.

Catholic Encyclopedia on the Holy Ghost

In addition to these systems and these writers, who came in conflict with the true doctrine about the Holy Ghost only indirectly and as a logical result of previous errors, there were others who attacked the truth directly:

Towards the middle of the fourth century, Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, and, after him a number of Semi-Arians, while apparently admitting the Divinity of the Word, denied that of the Holy Ghost. They placed Him among the spirits, inferior ministers of God, but higher than the angels. They were, under the name of Pneumatomachians, condemned by the Council of Constantinople, in 381 (Mansi, III, col. 560).
 
Since the days of Photius, the schismatic Greeks maintain that the Holy Ghost, true God like the Father and the Son, proceeds from the former alone.

I just think the use of Holy Spirit everywhere and replacing Holy Ghost makes the thoughts about Third Person of the Blessed Trinity a lot more dodgy and prone to foster erroneous ideas concerning The Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

 

In the English speaking world, traditionalists have a valid point about this change after Vatican II, and I am glad I am aware of it now. Since ghost is a Germanic word, maybe it has been an issue in central Europe also?

The Greek Orthodox issue about the filioque is backwards and obnoxious. The filioque was added to the liturgy in Spain and grew from there. It was after the Council of Nicea, but it was later approved.

God the Son is God from all eternity and He is uncreated. It should be obvious the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father to the Son and from the Son as well, even if not with the same Trinitarian character. The Holy Ghost must proceed from Himself also per se.

Byzantine Catholics pray the Nicene Creed without the filioque, but the valid implication of it is always there in the doctrine of the Trinity. "From the Father to the Son" is supposed to have been a completely Trinitarian formula not a partial one.

God the Father is not the only Trinitarian personality, and the Holy Ghost is proceeding from Himself and from within the Trinity, so he must have a procession from God the Son also.

Jesus is the Son of man and yet God the Son. The procession the filioque is talking about is from God the Son, but the Holy Ghost still must proceed even from the Son of Man now that the Incarnation has occurred.

If i were a theolgian.