Use of the term Holy Ghost

[jpgh]

I am trying to find out why the use of the term Holy Ghost is no longer used. Does anyone know why this term is no longer used?

[malphono]

Originally Posted by jpgh

I am trying to find out why the use of the term Holy Ghost is no longer used. Does anyone know why this term is no longer used?

There have been a number of threads in this forum about this very issue.

Plenty of folks will say "oh, it's archaic" and "oh, I don't believe in ghosts" and "oh, "Spirit" is so much more 'meaningful'" etc, but that begs the question. From my perspective, the term has fallen into general (but not total) disuse, as an after-effect of the dreaded "spirit of Vatican II" which basically says anything pre-1965 had to be discarded. I care less: I still use it.

[SonofMonica]

I grew up with it, still say it before saying grace.

[Mattapoisett64]

Originally Posted by malphono

There have been a number of threads in this forum about this very issue.

Plenty of folks will say "oh, it's archaic" and "oh, I don't believe in ghosts" and "oh, "Spirit" is so much more 'meaningful'" etc, but that begs the question. From my perspective, the term has fallen into general (but not total) disuse, as an after-effect of the dreaded "spirit of Vatican II." which basically says anything pre-1965 had to be discarded. I care less: I still use it.

Vatican II haters can say and believe what they want - they can even believe God is a ghost if they want. The point isn't that "ghost" is archaic, the point is that "Spirit" is a far more accurate translation of the Latin "Spiritus" and does a far more effective job of linking to the underlying meaning of "breath" or "wind." It's "Spirit" in the Romance languages, English just happens to be a Germanic language, and "ghost" is of Germanic origin linguistically. Ironic that those who decry some admittedly shaky translations from the Latin that occur in the Creed and Eucharistic prayers, reject this much more accurate translation from the Latin in terms of "Spirit."

[jpgh]

I did searches on the site for "holy ghost" but did not find relavant results. Maybe the quotes don't work on this site.

Can you give me any resources that say vatican II is the cause of the change?

[jpgh]

I just did another search that says Vatican II did not specify this change and offers another explanation.

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/...holy-ghost.htm

Thanks for responding, if I had found this other one earlier I wouldn't have posted.

[malphono]

Originally Posted by Mattapoisett64

Vatican II haters can say and believe what they want - they can even believe God is a ghost if they want. The point isn't that "ghost" is archaic, the point is that "Spirit" is a far more accurate translation of the Latin "Spiritus" and does a far more effective job of linking to the underlying meaning of "breath" or "wind." It's "Spirit" in the Romance languages, English just happens to be a Germanic language, and "ghost" is of Germanic origin linguistically. Ironic that those who decry some admittedly shaky translations from the Latin that occur in the Creed and Eucharistic prayers, reject this much more accurate translation from the Latin in terms of "Spirit."

Oh yeah, I know that drill too. <> So "Ghost" is archaic. So what? So is "ma'am" (being an old contraction of "madame") but the Queen still expects to be addressed that way. Whatever. As I said I care less: I still use Holy Ghost in English, and will continue to do so. The "spirit of Vatican II" will not overcome that.

[maurin]

quite honestly, I'm still trying to figure out why they changed the definition of the Church from "The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church", which is one and the same entity, to "The Church of Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church", which renders them two separate entities. Now there's a headscratcher for you.

[maurin]

Originally Posted by Mattapoisett64

Vatican II haters can say and believe what they want - they can even believe God is a ghost if they want. The point isn't that "ghost" is archaic, the point is that "Spirit" is a far more accurate translation of the Latin "Spiritus" and does a far more effective job of linking to the underlying meaning of "breath" or "wind." It's "Spirit" in the Romance languages, English just happens to be a Germanic language, and "ghost" is of Germanic origin linguistically. Ironic that those who decry some admittedly shaky translations from the Latin that occur in the Creed and Eucharistic prayers, reject this much more accurate translation from the Latin in terms of "Spirit."

If there's anyone I'd want to hold hands with during the Our Father, it's you! Your so spirit-filled and loving!!!!!

[malphono]

Originally Posted by maurin

If there's anyone I'd want to hold hands with during the Our Father, it's you! Your so spirit-filled and loving!!!!!

Now that is a classic, maurin.

p.s. glad to see you back.

[bpbasilphx]

English just happens to be a Germanic language, and "ghost" is of Germanic origin linguistically.

______

As it happens, the English word "ghost" and "gust" (as of wind) are cognates.

One of the meanings of "ghostly" was "spiritual," as in "ghostly father," or "ghostly meditations."

In the KJV, to see someone's "ghost" is used in the sense of to see someone's "spirit."

However, "ghost" has picked up certain undesirable connotations in the last couple of centuries.

They are equivalent terms, and V2 has nothing to do with it. Isabel F. Hapgood translated a lot of Orthodox services into English and consistently rendered PNEVMA/DUKH as "spirit," even in the Trinitarian doxology. And she worked in 1904.

[Halos1n2Horns]

The differences are more linguistic than theological. Past versus present usage and the various languages which went into modern English create much of the muddle. English speakers now rarely use the traditional "Holy Ghost" which we learned from the Authorized (or "King James") Version of the Bible. The AV used "Spirit" in a few places, but these were rare. "Ghost" came.from the Old English ~gast~, related to the German ~geist~. ~Gast~ sneaks into modern English in "aghast" (be shocked, terrified, rendered breathless) and "flabbergast." The German ~Zeitgeist~directly entered English; it means "the spirit of the times."

With recent Scripture translations, "Spirit" replaces "Ghost" in most instances. Some of this came about because words don't always hold their meanings. In the days of Shakespeare or King James, ~ghost~ meant the living essence of a person. Looking back, we see that "breath" or "soul" were often used as synonyms of "ghost." During these times, ~spirit~ normally meant the essence of a departed person or a demonic or paranormal apparition.

Slowly, language changed. People started saying "ghost" when speaking of the vision of a dead person while "spirit" became the standard term for life or living essence, often also for "soul." With slight exceptions, "ghost" and "spirit" changed places over some 300 years.

When comparing,"ghost" and "spirit" normally translate only one word from Hebrew and another from Greek. Throughout the Old Testament, the word ~ruach~ (pronounced ROO-ach) could mean wind, breath, spirit, mind. The basic sense of the ancient Hebrew word is "air in motion." It could be a positive or negative (see Jeremiah 5:13) term. In intensity, ~ruach~ was anything from a gentle breeze to cyclonic winds. Old Testament picture language used ~ruach~ for snorting through the nostrils, a sign of aggressiveness or anger by God, man, or beast.

Our next complication is Latin, the primary language of Western civilization for most of the past two thousand years. Latin gave us ~spiritus~ (breath) from ~spirare~ (blow or breathe). Imagine the possible translation headaches; consider the words based upon these and all their shadings of meaning. Spirit (both as noun and verb), respiration, inspiration, and spirited (verb or adjective) only begin the list. Sometimes root hides a bit, as in "expire"; literally, meaning "breathe out," we normally use it to say "terminate" or "die." All of this intersects when considering Matthew 27:50 and John 19:30. Most modern translations say Jesus gave or yielded up "his spirit" while the AV says "the ghost." Either means that He breathed His last and that His life's essence departed Him.

The bottom line: Both "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" refer to the Third Person of the Trinity. We see the dynamics and evolution of English, discovering in a seemingly simple case the complexity of translating into our language.

As mentioned earlier, "ghost" and "spirit" switched meanings. However, changes continue. Some of my colleagues argue that we should return to "Holy Ghost" because of the muddled concept of "spirit" and "spiritual" in modern English. I think they make a good case that it might be easier to reclaim "ghost" than "spirit" for our theological vocabulary. Many "spiritual" people have
"spiritual" thoughts and live "spiritual" lives without any relationship to the Holy Spirit.

But whichever we use, we remember that this Holy Ghost is God's active breath, blowing where He wishes, creating faith through water and Word. The conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 wonderfully intertwines the varied interpretations of spirit, breath, and wind as Jesus shows the Spirit's work on earth to effect our salvation.”


I also did major research on this also, sometime between the reformation and vatican 1 it changed, under Vatican I the apostles creed uses Holy Spirit ( 1869-1870).
Then I was told that man changed it back to Holy Ghost, ( not sure when) and after Vatican II when they did away with latin masses, for changing in church, they switched it back to Holy Spirit.

MY opinion on this is use what ever you most feel comfortable with.


Hope this helps a little history between Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, I preferr to use Holy Spirit, to me I feel the presenses more in Spirit then as in Holy Ghost, when i think of Holy Ghost ( meaning the same thing) i am usually on the look out for a dead person or vision of one in Ghost form. MY opinion


Peace be with you Halos

[maurin]

Originally Posted by Halos1n2Horns

English speakers now rarely use the traditional "Holy Ghost" which we learned from the Authorized (or "King James") Version of the Bible.

Most Catholics older than 45 learned "Holy Ghost" from the Douay-Rheims Bible, and from their Missals.

[SenorSalsa]

Think of how odd the exchange:
"Peace be with you"
"and with your ghost"
would sound. Whether or not that made sense in previous times I do not know, but now no person would think of a living person having a ghost. Spirit tends to be more closely related to the soul, and therefore much more likely to be associated with a living person.

and if spiritu is translated spirit at that point, it would make sense to stay consistent when talking of the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit.

Not that Holy Ghost is wrong, I just think that Spirit would give more english speakers the correct idea about the third person of the Trinity

[malphono]

Originally Posted by SenorSalsa

Think of how odd the exchange:
"Peace be with you"
"and with your ghost"
would sound. Whether or not that made sense in previous times I do not know, but now no person would think of a living person having a ghost. Spirit tends to be more closely related to the soul, and therefore much more likely to be associated with a living person.

and if spiritu is translated spirit at that point, it would make sense to stay consistent when talking of the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit.

Not that Holy Ghost is wrong, I just think that Spirit would give more english speakers the correct idea about the third person of the Trinity

The difference comes in usage: in the "old" days, the example given would not have been a problem: the bishop would have said "Pax vobis" and the response would have been "Et cum spiritu tuo." Easy enough. It was in Latin, so we weren't dealing with a liturgical English translation. Nor does the cited example concern reference to a Person of the Holy Trinity.

I don't know what was done in 12th century English either, but in pre-conciliar times the usage of the word "Ghost" was pretty much restricted as noted above. It was something just a bit out of the ordinary, which seems to me to be fitting for the purpose. The Holy Trinity is anything but ordinary. And FWIW, I continue to use it for that purpose. I don't ask that anyone else do likewise.