Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Funny Stuff for Catholics => Topic started by: Last Tradhican on June 07, 2016, 07:06:47 PM
-
When I came to America as a child, I was always taught to say Holy Ghost (I speak Spanish, where we say Spirito Santo, which is almost identical to the Latin). The reason my priest told me was because there are many holy spirits, but one Holy Ghost.
Below is an article which I found which I think explains it very well (though I don't anything about the author):
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/05/should-we-say-holy-ghost-or-holy-spirit.html
Should We Say Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit? Is there a difference?
Nowadays, the only English speakers using the term “Holy Ghost” are 1) Traditional Catholics; 2) Charismatics (“Holy Ghost Revival”); 3) King James only Fundamentalists; 4) Anglicans who use the older liturgies (which retain Holy Ghost throughout).
My first three children who were baptized in the Anglican tradition were each baptized, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Their baptismal certificates also read “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”
The historic reason for employing the language of “Holy Ghost” is that the Douay-Rheims Bible (used by traditional Catholics) and the King James Version (used by Anglicans and Fundamentalists) employ the term “Holy Ghost” for the Third Person of Holy Trinity over 90% of the time. “Holy Ghost” is not used exclusively, however. Both versions also employs “Holy Spirit.” For example, the Douay Rheims uses “Holy Ghost” 95 times, and “Holy Spirit” 8 times.
The 15th, 16th and 17th century English translators used “ghost” to translate the Latin “spiritus,” which in turn was a translation of the Greek “pneuma” (like pneumatic tools and catching pneumonia).
Ghost derives from the Old English word gast which refers to personal immaterial being – a soul, an angel, or even a demon. It is directly related the German geist.
Today, “ghost” conjures up images of haunted houses. It is a shame that this is the case. Is it, however, a reason to abandon the term “Holy Ghost”?
I still know many Catholics who use “Holy Ghost.” I still like to say the Glory be as “Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, etc.” because: A) that’s how I learned to say it as an Anglican; and B) it’s sounds beautiful and dignified.
There is also two theological reasons for using “Holy Ghost” from time to time.
1) First, we live in a culture where being “spiritual” is increasingly popular and increasingly vague. Just think about that horrid song “Spirit in the Sky,” and you know what I mean. In neo-pagan parlance, “being spiritual” and “the spirit” have nothing to do with the personal God fo the Sacred Scriptures. This “spirit” is more like “the force” in Star Wars than it is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. So when you say “Holy Ghost,” you’re clearly referring to traditional Trinitarian theology.
2) In English, “spirit” has always had a vague meaning and this is likely why the translators opted for “ghost.” Spirt is not wrong. In fact, the Latin spiritus is almost identical to the Greek pneuma. But spirit in English can refer to abstractions or it can refer to a person.
Examples:
“We’ve got spirit, yes we do! We’ve got spirit how ’bout you?”
Spirit, here, refers to vigor and enthusiasm. Nobody assumes that the cheerleaders are possessed by a “ghost” or “spiritual being.”
“the spirit of Vatican 2”
I think every magisterial Catholic from Pope Benedict XVI on down knows that the so-called “spirit of Vatican 2” is certainly not the “Holy Spirit.” Here, “spirit” refers to a way of interpretation or a movement.
“Play this song with spirit!”
Here again, this doesn’t mean to invoke an immaterial person. It means to play a song with a certain tempo or feeling.
So then, “spirit” can be ambiguous. Ghost is not ambiguous. Ghost always refers to “immaterial person.”
So when people speak of the Holy Ghost, the orthodox theology of His status as a Divine Person is highlighted. There are however a couple of drawbacks to “Holy Ghost.” The most obvious is that “ghost” typically has a negative connotation. Ghosts are thought to dwell in haunted houses and most people assume that ghosts are the souls of dead people. We certainly don’t mean this when we refer to the Holy Ghost who is uncreated, immortal, and omnipotent. Still, ghost does in fact refer to the souls of dead humans:
“And saying this, he gave up the ghost.” (Luke 23:46, D-R)
My opinion is that ghost captures the reality that the Holy Ghost is a Divine Person. You can know Him and talk to Him. And yes, He dwells in you. We can have a personal relationship with Him. So I like “ghost” because it reveals a personal agent. Spirit is also good because it hearkens back to the Latin Vulgate and corresponds to the Latin of the liturgy. However, it is more ambiguous in English – especially in our time with “being spiritual” is so popular.
In summary, there are positives and negatives to both terms. This is why I often use both “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” interchangeably on the blog, in lectures, and in conversations. The English/American Catholic tradition always used both terms, but gave “Holy Ghost” the privileged place. In around 1970, most English speaking Catholics retreated almost entirely from “Holy Ghost.” (I think this is why “Holy Ghost” has become the secret handshake of traditional Catholics.) So why not use both terms?
Just one last thing. If you do begin to sprinkle your prayers and discourse with “Holy Ghost” and someone challenges you on it for being archaic, don’t worry about it. We still all say archaic things every day: “Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.” We also still say, “blessed art thou amongst women.” We don’t have to update our prayers every decade with latest lingo. There is a blessed confidence in retaining the phrases of our grandfathers and their grandfathers.
-
When I came to America as a child, I was always taught to say Holy Ghost (I speak Spanish, where we say Spirito Santo, which is almost identical to the Latin).
If you do begin to sprinkle your prayers and discourse with “Holy Ghost” and someone challenges you on it for being archaic, don’t worry about it. We still all say archaic things every day [....]
Many CathInfo members have "been there, done that". Or was a search of Google limited to "site:cathinfo.com"- for "Holy Ghost" insufficiently entertaining?  I trivially found these via the 1st 2 pages of 'advanced search'[$] results:
"Difference between Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit" (in "The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers"), "Jun 13, 2011, 6:14 pm". <http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Difference-between-Holy-Ghost-and-Holy-Spirit>
"Holy Spirit VS Holy Ghost" (in "General Discussion"), "Dec 17, 2012, 1:09 pm". <http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22041&min=0>
"Question: Holy "Spirit" usage after Vatican II in contrast to Holy "Ghost"
(in "Crisis in the Church"), "Feb 19, 2013, 10:48 pm". <http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23112&min=0>
-------
Note *: I didn't cite Google because of any personal perception that it has more merit than other search-engines--quite the contrary: It's evil, so I avoid it whenever practical. But google seems to have a specially productive arrangement for crawling pages on CathInfo.
Note $: As translated to <https://www.google.com/search?q=catholic+"holy+ghost"+site:cathinfo.com>.
-
It's not "spirito" in Spanish. It's espíritu. Espíritu Santo.
-
The whole "there are many holy spirits, but one Holy Ghost" argument is spurious.
Because ghost and spirit have the same denotation in English (although they might have a different connotation). So if there are truly many holy spirits, then there are many holy ghosts as well.
Denotation = definition of a word
Connotation = flavor, nuance which adds a different feeling, mood or additional meaning.
For example,
intercourse is defined as "exchange". That is the word's DEnotation.
But nowadays I wouldn't talk about "my intercourse with John" because the word today has a CONNOTATION of "sɛҳuąƖ intercourse".
As for the argument Holy Ghost vs. Holy Spirit:
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 thought that before Vatican II english speaking people usually said "Holy Ghost" and that the modernists while changing everything changed it to "Holy Spirit." So because of this the Novus Ordo followers now use "Holy Spirit" and traditionalists use "Holy Ghost." So I use "Holy Ghost" not because I think there is anything wrong with "Holy Spirit," but because that is what traditionalists say.
-
True story: As most of you know I was born way before Vatican II, and when the changes started coming little by little there were so many excuses from our priests, one of them went like this. When instructing the children for their First Holy Communion we must tell them to say Holy Spirit, because if we teach them to pray to the Holy Ghost we will frighten them. Therefore, forget the world "Ghost" and only say Spirit.
-
True story: As most of you know I was born way before Vatican II, and when the changes started coming little by little there were so many excuses from our priests, one of them went like this. When instructing the children for their First Holy Communion we must tell them to say Holy Spirit, because if we teach them to pray to the Holy Ghost we will frighten them. Therefore, forget the world "Ghost" and only say Spirit.
Yes, that sounds like a change they would make at the time of making Catholicism harmonize with the sissy, weakling world. The new-modernist pastoral approach.
I always say "Holy Ghost" in English, and I can't help it but to be suspicious whenever I heard "Holy Spirit".
-
LastTradhican
When I came to America as a child, I was always taught to say Holy Ghost (I speak Spanish, where we say Spirito Santo, which is almost identical to the Latin). The reason my priest told me was because there are many holy spirits, but one Holy Ghost.
Below is an article which I found which I think explains it very well (though I don't anything about the author):
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/05/should-we-say-holy-ghost-or-holy-spirit.html
Should We Say Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit? Is there a difference?
Nowadays, the only English speakers using the term “Holy Ghost” are 1) Traditional Catholics; 2) Charismatics (“Holy Ghost Revival”); 3) King James only Fundamentalists; 4) Anglicans who use the older liturgies (which retain Holy Ghost throughout).
My first three children who were baptized in the Anglican tradition were each baptized, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Their baptismal certificates also read “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”
The historic reason for employing the language of “Holy Ghost” is that the Douay-Rheims Bible (used by traditional Catholics) and the King James Version (used by Anglicans and Fundamentalists) employ the term “Holy Ghost” for the Third Person of Holy Trinity over 90% of the time. “Holy Ghost” is not used exclusively, however. Both versions also employs “Holy Spirit.” For example, the Douay Rheims uses “Holy Ghost” 95 times, and “Holy Spirit” 8 times.
The 15th, 16th and 17th century English translators used “ghost” to translate the Latin “spiritus,” which in turn was a translation of the Greek “pneuma” (like pneumatic tools and catching pneumonia).
Ghost derives from the Old English word gast which refers to personal immaterial being – a soul, an angel, or even a demon. It is directly related the German geist.
Today, “ghost” conjures up images of haunted houses. It is a shame that this is the case. Is it, however, a reason to abandon the term “Holy Ghost”?
I still know many Catholics who use “Holy Ghost.” I still like to say the Glory be as “Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, etc.” because: A) that’s how I learned to say it as an Anglican; and B) it’s sounds beautiful and dignified.
There is also two theological reasons for using “Holy Ghost” from time to time.
1) First, we live in a culture where being “spiritual” is increasingly popular and increasingly vague. Just think about that horrid song “Spirit in the Sky,” and you know what I mean. In neo-pagan parlance, “being spiritual” and “the spirit” have nothing to do with the personal God fo the Sacred Scriptures. This “spirit” is more like “the force” in Star Wars than it is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. So when you say “Holy Ghost,” you’re clearly referring to traditional Trinitarian theology.
2) In English, “spirit” has always had a vague meaning and this is likely why the translators opted for “ghost.” Spirt is not wrong. In fact, the Latin spiritus is almost identical to the Greek pneuma. But spirit in English can refer to abstractions or it can refer to a person.
Examples:
“We’ve got spirit, yes we do! We’ve got spirit how ’bout you?”
Spirit, here, refers to vigor and enthusiasm. Nobody assumes that the cheerleaders are possessed by a “ghost” or “spiritual being.”
“the spirit of Vatican 2”
I think every magisterial Catholic from Pope Benedict XVI on down knows that the so-called “spirit of Vatican 2” is certainly not the “Holy Spirit.” Here, “spirit” refers to a way of interpretation or a movement.
“Play this song with spirit!”
Here again, this doesn’t mean to invoke an immaterial person. It means to play a song with a certain tempo or feeling.
So then, “spirit” can be ambiguous. Ghost is not ambiguous. Ghost always refers to “immaterial person.”
So when people speak of the Holy Ghost, the orthodox theology of His status as a Divine Person is highlighted. There are however a couple of drawbacks to “Holy Ghost.” The most obvious is that “ghost” typically has a negative connotation. Ghosts are thought to dwell in haunted houses and most people assume that ghosts are the souls of dead people. We certainly don’t mean this when we refer to the Holy Ghost who is uncreated, immortal, and omnipotent. Still, ghost does in fact refer to the souls of dead humans:
“And saying this, he gave up the ghost.” (Luke 23:46, D-R)
My opinion is that ghost captures the reality that the Holy Ghost is a Divine Person. You can know Him and talk to Him. And yes, He dwells in you. We can have a personal relationship with Him. So I like “ghost” because it reveals a personal agent. Spirit is also good because it hearkens back to the Latin Vulgate and corresponds to the Latin of the liturgy. However, it is more ambiguous in English – especially in our time with “being spiritual” is so popular.
In summary, there are positives and negatives to both terms. This is why I often use both “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” interchangeably on the blog, in lectures, and in conversations. The English/American Catholic tradition always used both terms, but gave “Holy Ghost” the privileged place. In around 1970, most English speaking Catholics retreated almost entirely from “Holy Ghost.” (I think this is why “Holy Ghost” has become the secret handshake of traditional Catholics.) So why not use both terms?
Just one last thing. If you do begin to sprinkle your prayers and discourse with “Holy Ghost” and someone challenges you on it for being archaic, don’t worry about it. We still all say archaic things every day: “Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.” We also still say, “blessed art thou amongst women.” We don’t have to update our prayers every decade with latest lingo. There is a blessed confidence in retaining the phrases of our grandfathers and their grandfathers.
Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to put this all together and present it. I shared it with my wife and we both really appreciate it. Some of it was an excellent review of things we had learned at one time or another, but still a good deal of it was entirely new to us.
-
It's because of this that Latin is the universal language of the Church. When people start condemning other Catholics because of something of as little importance as this, it shows that there is a problem. The same has occurred with the versions of the Our Father and traditionalists. In Portuguese you are considered a modernist if you say "forgive us our offenses" and not "forgive us our debts", whereas in English we say "trespasses". Ironically, each language unwittingly condemns the other. Banning vernacular prayers for Traditionalists is a healthy solution if we are going to condemn our own prayers because of the vernacular.
Vivat lingua Latina!
-
I prefer Latin due to my familiarity with it. When I pray by myself, it's almost always in Latin. So I have a tendency to prefer "Holy Spirit" even in English. Lots of Traditional Catholics look at me as if I were a "modernist". I also don't like the fact that outside of Traditional Catholic circles "Holy Ghost" might suggest that I'm a fundie. So I use "Holy Spirit" 99% of the time. Occasionally I'll switch to Holy Ghost among Traditional Catholics just to avoid "scandal".
:scared2:
-
LastTradhican
Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to put this all together and present it. I shared it with my wife and we both really appreciate it. Some of it was an excellent review of things we had learned at one time or another, but still a good deal of it was entirely new to us.
I got the same out of the article as you and your wife, thanks for the kind words.
-
When people start condemning other Catholics because of something of as little importance as this, it shows that there is a problem.
I wonder if there many Catholics left in the world that have the conviction about the Faith to condemn any other Catholic about anything. I think that any condemnation is more to cover up their own failings, kind of like a preemptive attack.
Anyhow, you are right in what you say.
-
The use of "Holy Spirit" is certainly not restricted to the post-VII era. One of my Bibles, published sometime in the late 1940s, has several prayers in it, all of which use "Holy Spirit." So long as one is actually referring to the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, and not some other spiritual belief, "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" mean the same thing.
-
We always say "Holy Ghost" simply because it's what we say. If I hear someone else say "Holy Spirit" I don't think it means someone different. Just a different custom.
At the SSPX chapel there is a person who quite loudly says "Holy Spirit" during the rosary before Mass. Nobody corrects him so I guess everyone is OK with it. Even those ubiquitous church ladies who hand out veils and admonish newcomers for wearing pants seem OK with it.
On an unrelated note I noticed a newly installed velvet rope in the hallway outside the sacristy to keep laity from barging in I guess? Usually there is a line of biddies standing there after Mass.
-
I prefer Latin due to my familiarity with it.
In retrospect, it's quite odd that despite graduating from what was then the typical 8 years of parochial school, I'd never been able there to study Latin as a language. My graduation gave my dad - an opportunity to redirect my enrollment into public schools: a system of county-operated secular schools that--back then--functioned reasonably well to provide a solid-enough education. It was ironically a system in which a student had the option--at last!--to study at least 3 years of Latin.
So I have a tendency to prefer "Holy Spirit" even in English. Lots of Traditional Catholics look at me as if I were a "modernist".
Having learned the corresponding Latin, I tend to prefer the same.
Sooo, how many of those "Traditional Catholics" have any familiarity with Latin--as a language--and details like the 4th declension to which "Spīritus, -ūs" belongs?
-------
Note #: Always the sole breadwinner, drawing a professional salary, for what had accuмulated into a handful of his children. Looking ahead to college educations whose costs he'd be socially expected to arrange or subsidize for each.
-
I grew up in Seattle in the 1960s hearing only "Holy Spirit". I did see "Holy Ghost" in some older books and Missals that were on the hallway bookshelf in my home and understood that to be the way people spoke in the "olden days" when they also said "thee" and "thou"--at least that what I thought.
An elder friend of mine told me that they switched from saying "Holy Ghost" to "Holy Spirit" in the mid to late 1950s where he grew up (rural Indiana). He said that the reason they gave (he was old enough to ask why they were changing) was that ghosts are scary and they didn't want people to be scared of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. He told me that he thought that was a stupid reason at the time because he had never been scared of the Holy Ghost! (So Myrna, it wasn't just where you were growing up!)
It is also true that I've seen the two terms used completely interchangeably--even in individual books published before the Council; though I can't say that I've ever seen the term "Holy Ghost in any book (other than reprints) published since the Council.
Today, I consider these terms to be more political than religious. People who usually use "Holy Ghost" are usually traditional Catholics. People who always use the term "Holy Spirit" are almost always Conciliar Catholics, Protestants, or non-religious English speakers. I can't say that I've ever met anyone who usually says "Holy Spirit" but sometimes says "Holy Ghost". The term is simply a good way know quite a bit about a person's religious beliefs.
-
The statement that all Trads use "Holy Ghost" is sadly, not accurate. I have been in FSSP parishes where all the faithful, and even the priests, say "Holy Spirit."
Most Indulters also say "Holy Spirit."
All SSPX'ers in my travels say "Holy Ghost."
-
The statement that all Trads use "Holy Ghost" is sadly, not accurate. I have been in FSSP parishes where all the faithful, and even the priests, say "Holy Spirit."
Most Indulters also say "Holy Spirit."
You say that not all Traditional Catholics use "Holy Ghost" and then tell us about Conciliar Catholics who say "Holy Spirit". :jester: