1582 Douai Rheims, 2 of 3

pg. 990

The Continvance of the Chvrch and Religion in the Sixth Age

( . . .)

The Holie Ghoft

 There is likewife particular mention of the Holie Ghoft in fome places. As 2. Efd. 9. v. 10. Thou gaueft them the good Spirite, which should teach them. for the office of internal teaching is appropriated to the Holie Ghoft. Ioan. 14. v. 17 and 16. v. 13. The Spirite of truth, and he shal teach you al truth. Ezec. 36. v. 27. I wil put my Spirite in the middes of you, and wil make that you walke in my precepts. Zach. 7. v. 12. The wordes which the Lord fent in HIS SPIRITE, by the hand of the former Prophetes. Sapient. 1. v. 5. The Holie Ghoft of difcipline wil flye from him that feaneth. Ecclefiafticus 1. v. 9. He created her in the Holie Ghoft.

I don't think it matters very much which one uses when praying alone.  My comments were not meant to criticize you but to explain why you are receiving such strong negative reactions.  You are dismissing it as mere emotionalism, but it isn't.  Violating a shibboleth is a known socio-linguistic phenomenon.  When you argue for saying "Holy Spirit" you are doing something that is perceived as signalling that you are on the other side.

Apparently most people here have not encountered enough Protestants who say "Holy Ghost" to identify the term with them.  In the experience of most, it is a trad/ non-trad identifier and you are arguing for the "enemy".

Bingo. Put much better than I ever did.

Contra errores Graecorum by St. Thomas Aquinas

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b1

PART TWO

CHAPTER 1

That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son.

The starting point of any demonstration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son must be what those in error also cannot deny, namely, that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, since this is expressly proved on the authority of Holy Scripture.

Galatians, 4:6: Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father. And Romans 4 (rather 8:9): Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Acts 16: 7: When they had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. And 1 Cor. 2:16: We have the mind of Christ. And from what the Apostle says previously it is clear that this must be understood of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of truth, as in John 15:26: When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth. He is also called the Spirit of life, as in Romans 8:2: The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Hence, when the Son says of himself: I am the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14: 6), the Greek doctors conclude that this is the Spirit of Christ. They argue similarly from the words of the Psalm (32:6): By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth. For the Son is also called mouth of the Father as well as Word.

But lest anyone claim that the Spirit who proceeds from the Father is other than the Spirit of the Son, the Scriptures show that the same Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son. For in John 15:11 he is simultaneously called Spirit of truth and Spirit who proceeds from the Father. And Romans 8:9 after stating : If the Spirit of God who dwells in you, immediately adds: If anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, to indicate that the Spirit of Father and Son is one and the same. Hence Basil, after citing these words of the Apostle, refutes Eunomius thus: “Behold he, namely, the Apostle, saw in Father and Son the one Spirit both of Father and of Son.” And Theodoret, explaining the same passage in his commentary on the letter to the Romans, says: “The Holy Spirit is common to Father and Son.”

The question, then, to be pondered is how the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son or the Spirit of Christ. One might say that he is the Spirit of Christ in so far as he dwelt fully in the man Christ, ad in Luke 4:1 : Jesus full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, or in John 1:16: Of whose fullness we have all received. This solution, however, cannot be defended when taken as the only reason why the Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ.

For it is shown by the Greek doctors that the Holy Spirit is the natural Spirit of the Son. Athanasius says in his third discourse on the Council of Nicaea: “As our nature lives divinely in Christ and He reigns in it, so in his natural Spirit we are and live and reign.” The same Doctor adds in his letter to Serapion: “You have received the Spirit of adoption, that is, the natural Spirit from the nature of the natural Son.” And Cyril comments on John: “The Son indeed exists in his own Begettor, having for himself the one begetting him; and so the Spirit of the Father truly and naturally appears to be and is the Spirit also of the Son.” But the Spirit is not naturally of Christ according to his humanity, sicne he does not belong to man by nature, but is poured forth gratuitously by God on human nature; hence, the Spirit cannot be called Spirit of the Son because he filled Christ par excellence according to his humanity.

Similarly Athanasius states in a sermon on the Incarnation of the Word that: “The Christ, qua God the Son, sent the Spirit from on high, and as man he received the Spirit on earth. From him, therefore, unto him he (the Spirit) dwells in the humanity of the same (Christ) from his divinity.” Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of Christ because he filled his humanity, but more so because he proceeds from his divinity.

One might, however, object that the Holy Spirit is of the Son according to his divinity in so far as given and sent by the Son of God, but not as existing from the Son personally and eternally. But neither can this stand on analysis. For Cyril, commenting on John, says: “The Holy Spirit is properly the Spirit of God the Father, but is no less the Spirit of God the Son, not however as two distinct Spirits.” He also says in his exhortation to the Emperor Theodosius: “As the Holy Spirit belongs to the Father from whom he proceeds, so also in truth he belongs to his Son.” If, therefore, he is of the Father, not only because he is given and sent by him in time, but also because he exists from him eternally, by the same token he is the Spirit of the Son as eternally existing of him. Cyril, commenting on John, likewise says: “The Holy Spirit exists as the truest fruit of the essence of the Son himself.” He is, therefore, of the Son, as it were having his essence from the Son.

Hence, it is clear that since they confess the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of Christ, they must further recognize that he is from the Son eternally.

One does not say that, “the ghost of God danced over the water,”  when the, “spirit of God”  is mentioned in the Old Testament. We are talking here of the English language."

St. Basil

Hexaemeron (Homily 2)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32012.htm

5.

(. . .)

When then, according to the order of God, the heaven appeared, enveloping all that its circuмference included, a vast and unbroken body separating outer things from those which it enclosed, it necessarily kept the space inside in darkness for want of communication with the outer light. Three things are, indeed, needed to form a shadow, light, a body, a dark place. The shadow of heaven forms the darkness of the world. Understand, I pray you, what I mean, by a simple example; by raising for yourself at mid-day a tent of some compact and impenetrable material, and shutting yourself up in it in sudden darkness. Suppose that original darkness was like this, not subsisting directly by itself, but resulting from some external causes. If it is said that it rested upon the deep, it is because the extremity of air naturally touches the surface of bodies; and as at that time the water covered everything, we are obliged to say that darkness was upon the face of the deep.

6. And the Spirit of God was borne upon the face of the waters. Does this spirit mean the diffusion of air? The sacred writer wishes to enumerate to you the elements of the world, to tell you that God created the heavens, the earth, water, and air and that the last was now diffused and in motion; or rather, that which is truer and confirmed by the authority of the ancients, by the Spirit of God, he means the Holy Spirit. It is, as has been remarked, the special name, the name above all others that Scripture delights to give to the Holy Spirit, and always by the spirit of God the Holy Spirit is meant, the Spirit which completes the divine and blessed Trinity. You will find it better therefore to take it in this sense. How then did the Spirit of God move upon the waters? The explanation that I am about to give you is not an original one, but that of a Syrian, who was as ignorant in the wisdom of this world as he was versed in the knowledge of the Truth. He said, then, that the Syriac word was more expressive, and that being more analogous to the Hebrew term it was a nearer approach to the scriptural sense. This is the meaning of the word; by "was borne" the Syrians, he says, understand: it cherished the nature of the waters as one sees a bird cover the eggs with her body and impart to them vital force from her own warmth. Such is, as nearly as possible, the meaning of these words — the Spirit was borne: let us understand, that is, prepared the nature of water to produce living beings: a sufficient proof for those who ask if the Holy Spirit took an active part in the creation of the world.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Summa Theologica 1. Q. 74

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1074.htm#article3

Article 3. Whether Scripture uses suitable words to express the work of the six days?

Objection 4. Further, the Spirit of God is God Himself. But it does not befit God to move and to occupy place. Therefore the words, "The Spirit of God moved over the waters," are unbecoming.

Reply to Objection 4. Rabbi Moses (Perplex. ii) understands by the "Spirit of the Lord," the air or the wind, as Plato also did, and says that it is so called according to the custom of Scripture, in which these things are throughout attributed to God. But according to the holy writers, the Spirit of the Lord signifies the Holy Ghost, Who is said to "move over the water"—that is to say, over what Augustine holds to mean formless matter, lest it should be supposed that God loved of necessity the works He was to produce, as though He stood in need of them. For love of that kind is subject to, not superior to, the object of love. Moreover, it is fittingly implied that the Spirit moved over that which was incomplete and unfinished, since that movement is not one of place, but of pre-eminent power, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. i, 7). It is the opinion, however, of Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem.) that the Spirit moved over the element of water, "fostering and quickening its nature and impressing vital power, as the hen broods over her chickens." For water has especially a life-giving power, since many animals are generated in water, and the seed of all animals is liquid. Also the life of the soul is given by the water of baptism, according to John 3:5: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Actually, it's been said since around A.D. 33, even before people started calling us Catholics.

.
Correct.
The fact that EENS has been integrally part of the One True Faith since the beginning cannot be denied.

As to the question, when did "they all change to Holy Spirit?", I note that an elderly gentleman at my parish tells me that in the early 1960s, when he was in high school,

.
Uhh --- "elderly gentleman?"
I was in high school in the latter 1960s. Does that mean in 5 years I'll be "elderly?"
.

the pastor told his class that, for now on, they would all say, "Holy Spirit" because they didn't want to "scare" children.  

.
Exactly. This was my experience too, and like I said, over the years I've run into many others from all over America who have told me it happened to them, too. So it's not debatable. This is part of American history in the Church. And it doesn't do any good to quote St. Ambrose or St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus. This is what happened in AMERICA.
.

My friend said that everyone in the class thought that was just plain silly. He said sometime in 1965, the pastor handed out a sheet with the English language responses for the Mass and told them to learn these as this is how they will respond beginning the following month at daily Mass for the school.  He told me that none of the kids paid any attention because they thought he was playing a joke, but he was very mad at them when he started saying Mass in English and no one knew the responses.

.
I have a copy of a throw-away Church guide sheet that is dated summer of 1964, containing instructions on how we were to change from Latin responses in our "dialogue Mass" to the vernacular. That was the first year after the Vat.II winter of 1963 when the Council was going crazy out of control after the death of John XXIII in June of the previous summer. Some things remained in Latin, but the Kyrie would keep only its Latin title, and we would say, "Lord have mercy; Christ have mercy; Christ have mercy; Lord have mercy." (people's responses only)
.
The Credo would be called "Credo" but we would all say it in English. The choir still sang these things in Latin, though. No longer would we call the part of Mass with the consecration the Canon of Mass, but the "Eucharistic Prayer." Incredible. A full 5 years before the Novus Ordo erupted! Priests all over the world started using a "transitional rite" ad experimentum as early as 1967. That's the one Padre Pio tried to say under obedience, and passed out from the physical pain, so he was allowed an exemption.
.
Keep in mind that American Catholics were in such a DAZE after the assassination of JFK in Advent of 1963, that changes in the Church were somewhat small potatoes, it seems. How much worse could it get than losing our only Catholic President to a stupid planned conspiracy? 1964 was the summer when the first wave of Revolution came to the parishes all across America, and it was when we were instructed by priests to stop saying "Holy Ghost" and start replacing it with "Holy Spirit." The only excuse they had was that saying Ghost might frighten children. This took YEARS to implement, but there was SO MUCH CHANGE going on, this got lost in the fog.
.
Curiously, I never have heard a single instance when saying, "Holy Ghost" ever frightened a child.
.
It was just an excuse. And a "just plain silly" one, as you say, TKGS. Your "elderly" friend is correct.
.

Last Tradhican, define terms:

What is the Spirit of God, if not the Holy Ghost?

We traditionalists all have said more than enough here. If you do not see it by now, it is because you do not want to. Maybe you will one day in the future.