I've been using "Holy Ghost" in my prayers for about a year now, however this is mainly due to it's use by other Traditionalists. However I've never really understood the difference between the two, or how to defend my use of "Holy Ghost" instead of "Holy spirit". What is the difference?

The terms "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" are completely interchangeable.  In fact, there have been a few times I've noticed that the Douay-Rheims bible uses the "Spirit" form.

Traditional Catholics generally use the term "Holy Ghost" because it is...traditional to do so in English speaking countries.  Also, when speaking to older Catholics I've been told that the Church (in the United States anyway) began the switch from "Holy Ghost" to "Holy Spirit" in the 1950s.  One gentleman specifically recalled the reason the priest gave for the change:  With the trick-or-treats at Halloween using the ghosts and goblins, the Church doesn't want children to be scared of the "Holy Ghost", and since the word "Spirit" is more gentle, children won't be frightened.  Clearly, this is poppycock.  I believe the Church in America began using "Holy Spirit" as an ecuмenical gesture because it happened (i.e., in the 1950s) around the same time priests and bishops started thinking along ecuмenical lines and American protestants always use "Holy Spirit".  That's right...the insane ecuмenism we generally associate with Vatican II really began to become pronounced prior to Vatican II which is why the American bishops were so active in promoting Religious Liberty at Vatican II.

Thus, today, using one term or another, though each are equally valid can be thought as more a political statement rather than a theological statement.  Using "Holy Ghost" signifies to others that one is, or considers himself to be, a traditional Catholic.  It tells the world the one rejects the New Order, the New Mass, the New Ecuмenism, the New Evangelization, etc., etc., etc.  It does not signify sedevacantism or the SSPX or other traditional orders or communities.  Even indult traditional Catholics use the term.  

Using the term "Holy Ghost", however, does tend to change one's theological outlook.  Not because the words themselves have any special psychological meaning or effectiveness, but because one is preferred by theological reformers and revolutionaries in the conciliar structures who have usurped the Catholic Church and have expelled those Catholics who, like Saint Athanasius, cling to tradition rather than fall for the new theology; in his case it was Arianism and in our case Modernism.  Thus, using "Holy Ghost" tends to give us a connection with the past and makes us a people set apart.

Interesting that you feel a need to "defend" the use of a fully Catholic term.  If you're having to defend using "Holy Ghost", how long do you think it will be before you have to defend using other Catholic terms, such as, "mortal sin", "confession", "true"....

In Dutch we only have 'Heilige Geest' (Holy Ghost), so it has remained unchanged here. Even the heretics use these words because there simply are no others.

This makes complete sense give your language.  Few (if any) languages are as versitile and dynamic as English.  English has developed over the centuries in a way that few other languages have.  For some reason, the people of Britania were very eager to incorporate words and grammar from others with whom they came into contact whether by defeat, conquest, or trade while seldom, it seems, giving up on their own language and grammar.

Thus, the Latin of the Roman, the French of Saxony, the Greek of international trade, among other languages, found a home on that island off the European coast in the very Germanic language of Old English which is, to an English speaker today, a completely foreign and alien language.

English often contains numerous words to describe one idea.  Oftentimes, English words contain subtle differences in connotation, but just as often word choice might just be a matter of preference.

This is the case of "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit".  At one time, I think, it was just a matter of preference and the ancient Catholics gravitated more to the Germanic Ghost rather than the Latinized Spirit.  The history is unknown to us, but there may have been subtle differences (or even political realities) in meaning those centuries ago that led to one use over the other.  On the other hand, the rise of the use of Spirit was essentially a move to show a separation from Rome.  It is also interesting that this doesn't seem to make sense:  The Christians loyal to Rome and the Catholic Faith used the more English Germanic word Ghost while Christian revolutionaries used the Latin form Spirit to show their separation from Latin Rome.  English contains so many paradoxes in language that is truly a very interesting language.

Quote from: Exilenomore

In Dutch we only have 'Heilige Geest' (Holy Ghost), so it has remained unchanged here. Even the heretics use these words because there simply are no others.

This makes complete sense give your language.  Few (if any) languages are as versitile and dynamic as English.  English has developed over the centuries in a way that few other languages have.  For some reason, the people of Britania were very eager to incorporate words and grammar from others with whom they came into contact whether by defeat, conquest, or trade while seldom, it seems, giving up on their own language and grammar.

Thus, the Latin of the Roman, the French of Saxony, the Greek of international trade, among other languages, found a home on that island off the European coast in the very Germanic language of Old English which is, to an English speaker today, a completely foreign and alien language.

English often contains numerous words to describe one idea.  Oftentimes, English words contain subtle differences in connotation, but just as often word choice might just be a matter of preference.

This is the case of "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit".  At one time, I think, it was just a matter of preference and the ancient Catholics gravitated more to the Germanic Ghost rather than the Latinized Spirit.  The history is unknown to us, but there may have been subtle differences (or even political realities) in meaning those centuries ago that led to one use over the other.  On the other hand, the rise of the use of Spirit was essentially a move to show a separation from Rome.  It is also interesting that this doesn't seem to make sense:  The Christians loyal to Rome and the Catholic Faith used the more English Germanic word Ghost while Christian revolutionaries used the Latin form Spirit to show their separation from Latin Rome.  English contains so many paradoxes in language that is truly a very interesting language.

Hi, I want to say I agree with everything you said, I just wanted to correct an error in your statement. You said the French of Saxony, The Saxons were Germanic, the English Language originated from the Saxons and Angles(and to a lesser extent the Jutes) who came over and conquered England. They may have merged a few words but it mostly stayed germanic for a time. The French came from Normandy. When William the Conqueror conquered England, he was a Viking decended Duke of Normandy who had integrated into the french culture slightly, but definately in language. For the next couple hundred years I believe the English Court spoke french. Thus latin based French words entered english.

Hi, I want to say I agree with everything you said, I just wanted to correct an error in your statement. You said the French of Saxony, The Saxons were Germanic, the English Language originated from the Saxons and Angles(and to a lesser extent the Jutes) who came over and conquered England. They may have merged a few words but it mostly stayed germanic for a time. The French came from Normandy. When William the Conqueror conquered England, he was a Viking decended Duke of Normandy who had integrated into the french culture slightly, but definately in language. For the next couple hundred years I believe the English Court spoke french. Thus latin based French words entered english.

Why thank you.  I was unaware of this.  I find history fascinating but, because of limited resources, I sometimes have to infer certain facts.  I had never, before now, read anything concerning the ancestory of the Saxons and had inferred, based on other histories, that they were a French speaking people.  I knew that the English totally incorporated French as language of the English Court after William of Conqueror and maintained french for a few generations.  I believe it was Edward I's reign in which English returned to the English Court, though that may be mistaken.

I appreciate the lesson.

I grew up using Holy Spirit and don't really know if I should be using Holy Ghost instead. While I understand that they are essentially the same thing, they tend to have different connotations. Should I be using 'Holy Ghost' to differentiate myself from those who are Novus Ordoites, or should I avoid it for that very reason (seems prideful)

While either are fine to use, is it ever prideful to do something to distiguish yourself from modernists?

I remember when I was still in the novus ordo church and trying to teach the little children their religion instructions.  I was told not to use the word "Ghost" but only "Spirit" because the world "Ghost" was too frightening for the little children.