Agree.  The use of the term 'Holy Ghost' is founded upon the Duoay-Rheims translation of Scripture (1582-1610) and the Roman Breviary, which were both translated/revised by order of the council of Trent, and Pope St Pius V, in response to the Protestant heresies.

So if you reject "Ghost" in favor of "spirit" (in english) you are not a traditionalist catholic.  "Ghost" goes back 500 years, at least.  

I still say Holy Spirit out of habit (mostly when reciting the Rosary) although I am not averse to saying Holy Ghost (and sometimes I do).    

But the point is that the words for ghost and spirit can both be used because they mean the same thing.

Really? That's his conclusion? Sounds like the story of the scientist that trained a frog to jump on command and recorded the distance of the jump, 4 feet, and he recorded the result, frog with four legs jumped 4 feet.  Then he cut off one leg and the frog jumped 3 feet, and he recorded the result again , frog with three legs jumped 3 feet and so forth till he cut off all the legs. Then with all the legs cut off, the frog would not jump no matter how much he yelled at it to jump. He finalized his test and recorded the conclusion: Frogs hear through the right front leg.

Really? That's his conclusion? Sounds like the story of the scientist that trained a frog to jump on command and recorded the distance of the jump, 4 feet, and he recorded the result, frog with four legs jumped 4 feet.  Then he cut off one leg and the frog jumped 3 feet, and he recorded the result again , frog with three legs jumped 3 feet and so forth till he cut off all the legs. Then with all the legs cut off, the frog would not jump no matter how much he yelled at it to jump. He finalized his test and recorded the conclusion: Frogs hear through the right front leg.

Why did you leave out the very next sentence when you quoted Matthew:

Long story short, they are equivalent, they just come from 2 different language families (Latin/Romance languages, and German)

Quite honestly, I think some here just want to argue.

I think this is an important point.  What traditional priest would be concerned with the validity of a baptism that used the form "in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit"?  Clearly the use of Holy Spirit still "intends to do what the Church does".

I see no one responded to this post yet.

If it is wrong to use the word "Spirit" rather than "Ghost", why does the Church accept baptisms using "Spirit" rather than "Ghost" in the form of the Sacrament of Baptism?  Think about that.  Clearly using "Spirit" doesn't change the validity of one's baptism!

No one has said it is a sin to use Holy Spirit, that it would invalidate a baptism in English.

I made the analogy of the Dialogue Mass, that mass was invented in the 1920's and it caught on big time after WWII in France, but it never got anywhere in English speaking countries. The Dialogue Mass is not a tradition in English speaking countries (nor is it really a tradition in France for 70 years does not make a tradition). It is a valid mass, but at the same time it is not tradition, it is a novelty. The use of Holy Spirit in English is not a tradition, it is a novelty. It would not be a sin for a French priest to order his congregation in the USA to do the Dialogue Mass, however, it would go against the traditions of that country. If a priest changes traditions, he will change anything.

I'm not sure that no one is saying that.  Jayne said it was offensive and scandalous to Traditional Catholics (and no one has questioned that statement other than myself).  Those are pretty strong words to use when the Church Herself sees nothing scandalous or offensive when the term is used to baptize.  As long the Church doesn't have a problem with it, no Traditional Catholic should have a problem with it.  And with that, I will leave this "debate".

So if you reject "Ghost" in favor of "spirit" (in english) you are not a traditionalist catholic.

That's completely idiotic ... and borderline insane.  PS -- no one "rejects" the term Holy Ghost.  We're speaking about our personal preferences.  I love it how some Traditional Catholics (such as yourself) have elevated this term to being a litmus test of orthodoxy.

The sort of Protestants who use the King James Version bible (and some even make it a point of belief that this is the only version allowed) also normally say "Holy Ghost".  I can understand Ladislaus not wanting to be mistaken for one of them.

On the other hand, there is no question that that the change from "Holy Ghost" to "Holy Spirit"" is associated with the "reforms" of Vatican II.

I have a solution;  we can pray in Latin only. :)

Regardless that it really does not matter, as LT said, "Holy Ghost" is traditional, the fact is, saying "Holy Ghost" is so traditional that normally, we would only expect to hear "Holy Ghost" in the NO and other prot services when they are attempting to make their preaching appear to be more orthodox, forceful, or in some way more authoritative.  

The terms "Holy Spirit" and Holy Ghost mean the same thing so either is entirely fine to use. If it weren't for the NO replacing the traditionally used "Holy Ghost" with "Holy Spirit" for no other reason than "change for the sake of change", "Holy Ghost" would most likely still be used most of the time, just as it was throughout Church history prior to V2.  

This issue is right up there with NOers and prots who, as a rule, say, "the Virgin Mary" instead of  some variation of "Our Blessed Mother", or they always just say "Jesus" rather than some variation of "Our Lord". There is nothing wrong with this either, many saints occasionally said the same thing, and many priests have used the same terms on occasion.

Back in the day when there was much confusion, we kinda used "Holy Spirit" as a means to identify possible NOers, but there is nothing wrong with it. As Jayne correctly said, we associate it with V2 because it was during that time that it became the norm.

Holy Spirit can be used to identify many different spirit beings.

Tell that to the Italians, Spanish, and French who all use a variation on the word "spirit" ... and like in English the term spirit has a similar broad range of meanings in their respective languages as well.  Ghost corresponds more to the Latin anima and the Church does not refer to the Holy Spirit as Anima Sancta.