When Did It Change From Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit? Why?

[StevenMerten]

I am 58 and I can just barely remember the Holy Spirit being called the Holy Ghost in the Catholic Church. The change must have been made in Vatican II. What was that about 1964? In my early twenties, I remember going to a Lutheran Church, for my sister. The minister called upon the Holy Ghost. I was floored. I guess he missed the memo.

Anyway, now it seems all of Protestantism has followed the Catholic Church lead on this. Or am I wrong? Anyway, I am interested in hearing about the conversion of Protestants to the Catholic terminology of calling the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I remember in my first week of RCIA I asked why the change was made to call the third person of the Holy Trinity the Holy Spirit instead of the Holy Ghost. And my temporary sponsor told me it's because too many people nowadays associate the word ghost with something scary.

 

[Glaucus]

Holy Ghost is often still used from what I've seen, although not nearly as much. The change likely came when they moved on from the KJV to more modern English and meanings in different Bible translations.

 

[sfs]

English-speaking Protestants traditionally used both, since both 'Holy Ghost' and 'Holy Spirit' are used in the King James Translation, although I think "Holy Ghost' was more common. Different groups dropped 'Holy Ghost' pretty much whenever they stopped using the King James, which could be at least as early as the 1940s (with the publication of the Revised Standard Version New Testament) to never, since some still use the KJV.

 

[Glaucus]

English-speaking Protestants traditionally used both, since both 'Holy Ghost' and 'Holy Spirit' are used in the King James Translation, although I think "Holy Ghost' was more common. Different groups dropped 'Holy Ghost' pretty much whenever they stopped using the King James, which could be at least as early as the 1940s (with the publication of the Revised Standard Version New Testament) to never, since some still use the KJV.

Ha, just barely beat you to it. Yes, I think this is definitely it.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I am 58 and I can just barely remember the Holy Spirit being called the Holy Ghost in the Catholic Church. The change must have been made in Vatican II. What was that about 1964? In my early twenties, I remember going to a Lutheran Church, for my sister. The minister called upon the Holy Ghost. I was floored. I guess he missed the memo.

Anyway, now it seems all of Protestantism has followed the Catholic Church lead on this. Or am I wrong? Anyway, I am interested in hearing about the conversion of Protestants to the Catholic terminology of calling the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

Aren't both Names used (Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost) in the Bible that catholics put their faith in?

 

[Rhamiel]

I think Ghost is more of a germanic word
might be why the Anglo-Saxon culture used it

Spirit is a more modern way to describe the same thing, in modern English "Ghost" is almost only used for the spirit of a dead human
Spirit is more versatile
in germanic or older english Ghost was just as versatile

 

[MoonlessNight]

I think Ghost is more of a germanic word
might be why the Anglo-Saxon culture used it

Spirit is a more modern way to describe the same thing, in modern English "Ghost" is almost only used for the spirit of a dead human
Spirit is more versatile
in germanic or older english Ghost was just as versatile

Indeed, ghost is Germanic in origin. Compare "Geist" from German. In fact, Geist is often used where you would hear spirit in English, like in Zeitgeist "the spirit of the age" (though literally "timeghost"). Or, more relevant to the current discussion, Die Heilige Geist for The Holy Spirit. The word can be used for ghosts, but I think "Gespenst" is more commonly used for that purpose. I guess there's also "Spuk" but I'm pretty sure that's just borrowed from English as popularized by Max Stirner.

In contrast spirit derives from Latin (or maybe French from the Normans, I don't know the exact history of the word in English). Compare spiritus in Latin or esprit in French.

English being Germanic in origin but filled to the brim with various French/Latin (and general romance) vocabulary, we often get two words that mean the exact same thing but over time grow to have different connotations. For example sheep shares a root with the German Schaf and mutton with the French mouton, but in both those languages the word just means sheep. In English one refers to the animal and one refers to the meat.

As for spirit and ghost, the differentiation seems to be pretty recent in English. You still hear some phrases where "Ghost" is used to mean "spirit" generally, and not specifically a spirit of a dead person that haunts people, such as in "Ghost in the Machine," "Give up the Ghost," or indeed the common usage of "Holy Ghost" among Catholics until recently. From what I've seen in literature "ghost" as "spirit" wasn't the most common meaning of the term say, sixty years ago, but it was certainly there.

I suspect that horror movies together with the popularization of Halloween killed off the other usages of "ghost."

 

[Charles in Ky]

I don't recall the name of the prayer without looking but I have an old prayer book printed in 1908 that has a prayer that uses both terms (within the same prayer)

 

[StevenMerten]

Aren't both Names used (Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost) in the Bible that catholics put their faith in?

Hello Johnny,
It is all 'Holy Spirit' in any modern Catholic Bible I have read. It was a pretty clean cut from 'Holy Ghost' to 'Holy Spirit', in the 1960s, for Catholicism, as far as I see.

 

[Glaucus]

All in all, it's a bet presumptuous, pompous, and arrogant to try to attribute something so small to the Catholic Church taking some kind of lead and the Protestants following along. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church and everything to do with "Bible Christians" moving on from Elizabethan English Bibles to modern English Bibles. This is nothing to pat yourself on the back over. The Catholic Church is a leader in many things. You don't need this irrelevant, small victory to boost your ego. Sorry for the stern language, but really. Just really.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Hello Johnny,
It is all 'Holy Spirit' in any modern Catholic Bible I have read. It was a pretty clean cut from 'Holy Ghost' to 'Holy Spirit', in the 1960s, for Catholicism, as far as I see.

But, does it matter?

(1) The original word in Hebrew translated "Spirit" was Ruwach which translates as wind, breath, and spirit. In the New Testament, the Greek word translated "Ghost" (KJV) or "Spirit" in other versions is Pneuma which means breath, wind, and spirit. So, the writers never appeared to intend for the Holy Spirit to be called the Holy Ghost. I think if I had to pick something to move away from in light of the real words used in the original Scriptures, I would move away from "Ghost" and to "Spirit", too.

(2) A Ghost has always connoted something that is dead and returning to haunt and the definition actually says "an apparition of a dead person...." Jesus said "God is not the God of the dead but of the living." I think when originally translating the word for "Spirit" as "Ghost", people may have been trying to emphasize the personhood of the Holy Spirit; but, I don't have a problem thinking of the Holy Spirit as a person without changing His Name. There is one preference that calls the Holy Spirit "The Seven Spirits of God" that would sound really weird if you switch to the "Seven Ghosts of God".

In light of all that, I now prefer to call the Holy Spirit "the Holy Spirit" not "The Holy Ghost."

Thank you for making that an issue for me to examine! The crazy thing is that I knew the words used for "Spirit", and yet, it never dawned on me to consider the correct name until your post. Thank you again! Have a blessed day!

 

[MoonlessNight]

But, does it matter?

(1) The original word in Hebrew translated "Spirit" was Ruwach which translates as wind, breath, and spirit. In the New Testament, the Greek word translated "Ghost" (KJV) or "Spirit" in other versions is Pneuma which means breath, wind, and spirit. So, the writers never appeared to intend for the Holy Spirit to be called the Holy Ghost. I think if I had to pick something to move away from in light of the real words used in the original Scriptures, I would move away from "Ghost" and to "Spirit", too.

(2) A Ghost has always connoted something that is dead and returning to haunt and the definition actually says "an apparition of a dead person...." Jesus said "God is not the God of the dead but of the living." I think when originally translating the word for "Spirit" as "Ghost", people may have been trying to emphasize the personhood of the Holy Spirit; but, I don't have a problem thinking of the Holy Spirit as a person without changing His Name. There is one preference that calls the Holy Spirit "The Seven Spirits of God" that would sound really weird if you switch to the "Seven Ghosts of God".

In light of all that, I now prefer to call the Holy Spirit "the Holy Spirit" not "The Holy Ghost."

Thank you for making that an issue for me to examine! The crazy thing is that I knew the words used for "Spirit", and yet, it never dawned on me to consider the correct name until your post. Thank you again! Have a blessed day!

The problem is a shift in the English meaning, not an inaccurate translation. The idea that "ghost" can only mean "apparition of a dead person" is a pretty recent innovation in English. In fact, the German word "Geist" maintains something closer to the original meaning of Ghost, as I noted earlier.

I mean, what do you think people used in English to refer to the concept of "spirit" before the Norman occupation? It wasn't "spirit," that's a romance root.

As far as I can tell the current distinction is a result of English generally not liking having two words that mean exactly the same thing. Thus when we borrow a word that copies the meaning of something we already have a word for, the two words gain specialized meanings over time. But it's a mistake to assume that the specialized meanings are the only interpretations that have ever existed, just as it would be a mistake to assume that "gay" always and only meant "homosexual" throughout the history of the English language.

 

[StevenMerten]

All in all, it's a bet presumptuous, pompous, and arrogant to try to attribute something so small to the Catholic Church taking some kind of lead and the Protestants following along. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church and everything to do with "Bible Christians" moving on from Elizabethan English Bibles to modern English Bibles. This is nothing to pat yourself on the back over. The Catholic Church is a leader in many things. You don't need this irrelevant, small victory to boost your ego. Sorry for the stern language, but really. Just really.

Hello Glaucus,
It was more of a shock to me than trying to glorify Catholics for doing the switch. To hear the Protestants still using the term 'Holy Ghost', is immensely interesting to me.

Even today I run into Protestant Christians still using the old English King James Version Bible. Even after decades of translation experts revealing its many flaws. For decades I wondered why on earth KJV Protestants would not just get an updated bible. When you are discussing a point with a Protestant, and they come in with a KJV quote, You first have to go to a modern Bible to read the quote, so you know what they are talking about.

A great number of KJV bible readers think that they are far holier than Catholics because they read from the 'original', bible. Do you agree that KJV Protestants thinking they are holier than Catholics, because of the bible they read from, is 'presumptuous, pompous and arrogant'?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

The problem is a shift in the English meaning, not an inaccurate translation. The idea that "ghost" can only mean "apparition of a dead person" is a pretty recent innovation in English. In fact, the German word "Geist" maintains something closer to the original meaning of Ghost, as I noted earlier.

I mean, what do you think people used in English to refer to the concept of "spirit" before the Norman occupation? It wasn't "spirit," that's a romance root.

As far as I can tell the current distinction is a result of English generally not liking having two words that mean exactly the same thing. Thus when we borrow a word that copies the meaning of something we already have a word for, the two words gain specialized meanings over time. But it's a mistake to assume that the specialized meanings are the only interpretations that have ever existed, just as it would be a mistake to assume that "gay" always

The problem is a shift in the English meaning, not an inaccurate translation. The idea that "ghost" can only mean "apparition of a dead person" is a pretty recent innovation in English. In fact, the German word "Geist" maintains something closer to the original meaning of Ghost, as I noted earlier.

I mean, what do you think people used in English to refer to the concept of "spirit" before the Norman occupation? It wasn't "spirit," that's a romance root.

As far as I can tell the current distinction is a result of English generally not liking having two words that mean exactly the same thing. Thus when we borrow a word that copies the meaning of something we already have a word for, the two words gain specialized meanings over time. But it's a mistake to assume that the specialized meanings are the only interpretations that have ever existed, just as it would be a mistake to assume that "gay" always and only meant "homosexual" throughout the history of the English language.

Okay. So, if they can both mean the same thing; but one takes on a meaning contrary to what you are trying to convey, why are you against changing the word to the one that most clearly, in today's use, better connotes what you are trying to say?

 

[Glaucus]

A great number of KJV bible readers think that they are far holier than Catholics because they read from the 'original', bible. Do you agree that KJV Protestants thinking they are holier than Catholics, because of the bible they read from, is 'presumptuous, pompous and arrogant'?

Of course. Did you think it was a one way street?

And in case you think I'm a KJV-only Protestant or a Protestant in any way, I'm not.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Okay. So, if they can both mean the same thing; but one takes on a meaning contrary to what you are trying to convey, why are you against changing the word to the one that most clearly, in today's use, better connotes what you are trying to say?

I never said that I was against the change. If anything I'm neutral to it; I think that either Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit are appropriate titles for the Third Person of the Trinity.

What I am against is your false insinuation that "The Holy Ghost" is the result of a mistranslation contrary to the intent of the original authors of scripture.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I never said that I was against the change. If anything I'm neutral to it; I think that either Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit are appropriate titles for the Third Person of the Trinity.

What I am against is your false insinuation that "The Holy Ghost" is the result of a mistranslation contrary to the intent of the original authors of scripture.

This is really a fruitless debate, as far as I am concerned. If you want to throw rocks about what English word the original authors of Scripture wanted to use, go ahead. What I don't understand is how, when the original authors spoke in another language--and weren't trying to imply the current meaning of ghost, you feel that the old english translation needs to be defended and retained today.
If the meaning changed, then let the word used change to stay consistent with the original authors intent--which was not related to being dead. The Holy Spirit never died. Whatever the Old English meaning was, it isn't the same today, so we need to adjust so we don't give a false impression.

 

[Charles in Ky]

Different prayer book than I mentioned in my previous post.

But for what it's worth...

 

[Charles in Ky]

It seems that the Holy Ghost sends the Spirit into the hearts of the faithful.

These old prayers all seemed to invoke the Holy Ghost to send the Holy Spirit into our hearts.

I don't base this thinking on theology. It's just my interpretation of it and the reason I say " In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost "

The Holy Ghost is one of the Trinity.

At Mass, when the priest says " the Lord be with you", and the congregation answers "and with your spirit", it seems to make perfect sense. If we were to answer "and with your ghost", it would not make sense to me. Whether you interpret "the Lord" as God or Jesus Christ, to answer "and with your ghost" would imply that it is the priests' ghost.

So again, my interpretation is that we invoke the Holy Ghost and ask for the grace of the Holy Spirit into our hearts. Or Soul if you will.