Holy Ghost vs Holy Spirit

+

JMJ

Something that always and I do mean always causes me to cringe interiourly is when non-Trad Catholics use the words "Holy Spirit" instead of "Holy Ghost".

First, this is a natural response because of long usage of "Holy Ghost" as soon as I hear the word "Holy" in a prayer, my brain automatically is prepped to hear "Ghost" afterwards.  This creates a short period of interiour dissonance (discomfort).

Now the question I would like to ponder today is whether or not there is a difference and whether or not there is a right way vs wrong way.



This is not my question alone, after a single search I found articles on EWTN, Taylor Marshall, and the Catholic Encyclopedia (source 1, source 2)

Taylor Marshall presents what I had already understood but couldn't express: Spirit is ambiguous as it can have a number of meanings, whereas Ghost is specific. 

Here's the key point from Dr. Marshall:

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.
...
So then, “spirit” can be ambiguous. Ghost is not ambiguous. Ghost always refers to “immaterial person.”

Father Edward McNamara, author of the Zenit article cited by EWTN asserts that the change was a result of the popularity of "ghost stories" in the mid-19th century.

It must also be remembered that in literature the popularity of the "ghost story" had enjoyed an enormous boom from the mid-19th century on, a popularity compounded by the advent of the cinema and television.
All of this probably led translators to the conclusion that the meaning of the word Ghost had been so transformed and stereotyped that continuing to apply it to refer to the Divine Person was more likely to lead to confusion than would the alternative expression Holy Spirit.
Holy Spirit therefore is now universally used in all official texts, and over the last 50 years or so has become common usage. The expression Holy Ghost, however, when properly understood, retains its validity in the context of personal prayer for those who wish to continue using it. 

This is interesting as it is simply Father's opinion.  Words have meaning and the change from words that have a specific meaning to one's that have multiple ambiguous meanings is the hallmark of this crisis.  Take for example the exclusion of the filioque from the Creed by the Canadian Ukrainian Catholics.  Now both Catholic and Schismatic can recite the Creed together, but do they believe the same thing?  No.  The Nicene Creed with the filioque is a specific (explicit) exposition of the Dogma.  Using an earlier form of the Creed simply makes it ambiguous (implicit) on that position.

Now one quick point, the term "Holy Spirit" is used in the Cathechism of Trent 18 times, whereas "Holy Ghost" is used 180 times.  So both phrases have their proper uses and this bears further research when I am moved by the Spirit to do so.

However, I would like to point out (as does Dr. Marshall) that the complete abandonment of the term "Holy Ghost" in favour of "Holy Spirit" occurred in the early 1970's. This is a cultural artifact that was changed with the advent of everything else that changed.

My question is this: Why was this  change foisted upon English speaking Catholics?

Here is my opinion: The tone of the Second Vatican Council was one of compromise and ambiguity. The complete abandonment of "Holy Ghost" was therefore simply another casualty of the crisis.

So what to do when gathered with non-Trad Catholics.

My recommendation is to simply promote the use of Holy Ghost by continuing to use it unobtrusively.

This will prompt questions.

Questions to which you now have the answers.

P^3

PS. I know I said I would not be posting much, but this topic occurred to me during my morning prayers / meditation. I thought it was worth a quick article.