Ineffable

Ineffable (pronounced in-ef-uh-buhl)

(1) Incapable of being expressed or described in words; indescribable; indefinable; inexpressible.

(2) Not to be spoken because of its sacredness; too great or intense to be expressed in words; declared as unutterable.

1400–1450: From the late Middle English ineffable (beyond expression in words; too great for words, inexpressible; unspeakable), from the fourteenth century Old French ineffable (which in modern French endures as ineffable), from the Latin ineffābilis (unutterable), the construct being from in- (not; opposite of) +‎ effor (utter) +‎ -bilis (-able), the antonym therefore effābilis (speakable; able to be expressed), from effārī (utter), from fārī (to say; speak), from the primitive Indo-European root bha (to speak, tell, say).  The old English antonym was effable which is archaic and probably extinct except as a literary or poetic device.  Ineffable & ineffaceable are adjectives, ineffability & ineffableness are nouns and ineffably is an adverb.  Although it sounds paradoxical, it can make sense when ineffable is used as a (non-standard) noun so the noun plural can be ineffables.

The meaning "that may not be spoken" is from 1590s and the noun ineffables was for some time a jocular euphemism for "trousers", source of the companion “unmentionables” which survived into the twentieth century to refer to underwear in a similar sense.  The noun ineffably (unspeakableness) dates from the 1620s.  The adjective effable gained its currency in the seventeenth century because of the use in legal jargon to impart "that may be (lawfully) expressed in words" and although long archaic it does still sometimes appear in literary efforts good and bad.

In Christianity, at times the very name of God was held to be ineffable because it was something too sacred to be uttered by earthly lips.  Adonai was an Old Testament word for God (used as a substitute for the ineffable name), from the Medieval Latin, from the Hebrew Adhonai (literally my lord"), from adon, from the Ancient Greek Ἄδωνις (Ádōnis). + -ai (the suffix of the first person).  Jehovah was used in William Tyndale's (1494–1536) transliteration of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH (using the vowel points of Adhonai).  The full name being too sacred for utterance, it appears in four places in the King James Version (KJV 1611) where the usual translation the lord would have been inconvenient and was taken as the principal and personal name of God.

Portrait of Pope Leo X and his cousins, cardinals Giulio de' Medici and Luigi de' Rossi, oil on canvas by Raphael (1483–1520).  Leo X got a bit of fun out of life.

The history of the vowel substitution is an example of the sometimes haphazard way in which language evolved in the Medieval period.  It was a loose aggregation of Jewish scribe-scholars called the Masoretes (בַּעֲלֵי הַמָּסוֹרָה in the Hebrew and romanized as Baʿălēy Hammāsōrā, literally “Masters of the Tradition”) who between the fifth and tenth centuries, working out of Palestine and Babylonia, first made the vowel substitution.  Various factions of the Masoretes codified systems of pronunciation and grammatical guides in the form of diacritical notes (the niqqud) on the biblical text in an attempt to standardize the pronunciation, paragraph and verse divisions.  Their work is best remembered for the chanting, defined by the cantillation (the intonation of a sentence, by way of marks which are read as sequences of musical pitches) of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), used by Jewish communities worldwide.  The Masoretes made the vowel substitution a direction to substitute Adhonai for “the ineffable name”.  That was fine but in the West, scholars took it literally as just another word to translate which yielded JeHoVa, the first instance apparently in the writings of the Italian theologian Petrus Galatinus (1460-1540) who held clerical office under Pope Leo X (1475–1521; pope 1513-1521), one of the four Medici popes and remembered (fondly by a few) for his observation “God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it” and although historians have their doubts he ever uttered the words, his conduct while on the throne of Saint Peter made clear if he didn't say it, he should have.  

In modern use the concept of ineffability takes various forms.  There is the idea of what is taboo (that which is by social consensus or convention forbidden to be uttered) which is a shifting set of ideas, subjects and individuals; depending on this and that in one era they may not be mentioned while at other times they may not be criticized.  There’s the notion of it as the indescribable (which can apply equally to extremes of pain and joy) which is really a terms of emphasis which indicates there is not adjective or other word available to encapsulate something so extreme.  In science it describes (actually more “refers to”) those phenomena which may exist but be yet undiscovered because the limitations of language mean it’s not possible even to imagine their existence; the classic Rumsfeldian unknown unknowns, which, upon becoming known become known and sometimes, retrospectively understood known unknowns.

Tomb of Pius IX in the Vatican.

Ineffabilis Deus (Ineffable God) was a statement of dogma issued in 1854 by Pope Pius IX (1792–1878;pope 1846-1878), confirming the long-held belief in much of the Church that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, was born of an immaculate conception and thus entered the world free of original sin.  Leo’s statement came five years after the circulation to the bishops of the exploratory Ubi Primum (On The Immaculate Conception), a document which might now be called a green paper, seeking as it did their opinion on the matter.   It was their positive reaction which encouraged the publication of Ineffabilis Deus, now recognized as an instance of the doctrine of papal infallibility that was something which would not formally be defined and constitutionally enshrined until the First Vatican Council (1869–1870 and now often referred to as Vatican I).  Papal infallibility is sometimes misunderstood and is actually limited in its application to the times at which when pope speaks ex cathedra (literally “from the chair”): matters of faith and doctrine.  So, like many wise dictators, Pius followed the practice of Catherine the Great (Catherine II, 1729-1796; Empress of Russia 1762 to 1796) who while appearing dictatorial, took care to ensure soundings were taken and her edicts were issued only when she was sure they would be obeyed.  Leo likewise sounded out the bishops.

In the triple crown, laying down the law: Dream of Innocent III and the Confirmation of the Rule (1452) by Benozzo Gozzoli (1421-1497), San Francesco Gallery, Montefalco, Italy.

Still, it’s a potent authority to possess in an absolute theocracy and as the Ayatollahs in Iran are discovering, has its limitations if imposed beyond the limits the people will accept and they’d do well to recall the shrewd observation of one pope that “when one is infallible, one has to be careful what one says”.  What was codified at Vatican I (in Pastor aeternus (literally “Eternal Shepherd” and the First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ)) really wasn’t new in that historians have cited several instances in medieval theology and although noting alluding to the concept appears to exist in ancient texts, there’s no known discussion of the idea that even a bishop might sometimes be wrong until the Council of Antioch (264) but the sense of the Church’s enduring permanence of rightness does for centuries seem to have been thought implicit.  The theological basis of a pope’s authority come from several Biblical texts, most notably Matthew 16: 18-19 in which is described the delegation of authority Christ passed to St Peter, something which the early Christians held was inherited by his successors.  Of subsequent political interest was that authority in some sense also accrued to Rome because Peter was held to be the its first bishop and was there martyred, things of real significance in the centuries which followed when alternative “popes” in other places contested the rights to power and devotion.  However, although the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria both staked apostolic claims, they fell to Islam while Constantinople, although a military and political power, had no apostolic tradition.  Contested though it sometimes was, Rome’s primacy was established early and it endured although, this did seem to encourage a bit of mission creep, Innocent III (1160–1216; pope 1198-1216) going further than most in asserting ultimate authority in matters temporal as well as spiritual, his omnibus claim of ratione peccati (by reason of sin) probably leaving nothing of the affairs of man beyond a pope’s reach.

Pope Nicholas III in triple crown.

Interestingly, historians regard the emergence infallibility in a recognizably modern form owes much to a legal device.  After Pope Nicholas III (circa 1225–1280; pope 1277-1280) arranged for the worldly goods of Franciscans to be assigned to the papacy so the monks might live in the poverty their vows demanded, one legally-minded Franciscan expressed concern an anti-pope (there were fakes from time to time) might misuse this confiscatory power.  He therefore argued that infallibility existed but that each edict was absolute and no pope could go back on the utterances of his predecessors. So papal, bound by precedent, infallibility was not sovereignty because a pope was bound by the statements of his predecessors.  Squabbles followed, sometimes essentially about money and sometimes the apparently abstract issue involving the authority to create saints, something actually of real significance because of the importance the cults of saints had assumed in the numbers of adherents (and thus their money) the various orders could attract.  More seriously, the Western Schism (1378-1417) introduced what some held to be heretical: that the Church should not be ruled by a sovereign pope, authority instead vested in Church councils, the intellectual rationale being that while a single pope could be in error, the collective of a council could not.  From this can be traced the beginnings of the idea that papal infallibility was defensible (and perhaps even desirable) if limited to matters of faith and morals.  However, there is nothing in the papers left by the Council of Trent (1545-1563) from which it would appear even an inference could be drawn about infallibility and the rise of science and the Enlightenment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries hardly provided fertile ground to pursue the matter.

Pope Pius XII while Apostolic Nuncio to Germany (1920–1930), leaving the presidential palace in Berlin after celebrations marking the 80th of president Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934), October 1927.

Yet it was in the nineteenth century, as modernity began to intrude even on the Church that the notion was asserted and embedded in the constitution.  Without any explicit precedent in theology or canon law, Pius IX decreed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary to be infallible and this seems to have been the definitional marker used at Vatican I which declared a pope was infallible when speaking ex Cathedra on matters of faith and morals.  Still, even that may have been a double-edged sword for although, by the mid-nineteenth century the matter of Mary’s initial sinfulness was probably of interest to a relative few, Pius IX’s Syllabus Errorum (Syllabus of Errors (1864)) which was a strident attack of much that was liberal and modern was controversial; the council may have decided that the limits of infallibility were as importance as its existence.  Tellingly, the only other statement issued ex Cathedra came in 1950 when in his bull Munificentissimus Deus (The most bountiful God) Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) defined the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Pope Benedict XVI in Mercedes-Benz ML 430 popemobile, driving through Via Condotti before a prayer at the statue of the Virgin Mary during the annual feast of the Immaculate Conception at Piazza di Spagna (Spanish Steps), Rome, 8 December 2012.

No pope has since spoken ex Cathedra although during the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965), in his encyclical Lumen Gentium (literally “Light of the Nations” (1964) and an update to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ) Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) did stretch the definition a bit by defining papal infallibility as that spoken by a pope on a matter of faith and morals either ex Cathedra or in an ecumenical council.  Among Vatican-watchers, there does seem now a view the Holy See has embarked on a strategy of “Infallibility by stealth”, imposing doctrinal orthodoxies and shutting down debate by clever phraseology.  Still, technically, it remains an authority unused since 1950 and Benedict XVI (b 1927; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus since), always at his happiest dancing on the head of a pin, was often at pains to differentiate between his solemn (but not infallible) pronouncements made as pope and anything else he’s ever said.  The modern popes would appear more aware of their own fallibilities than their predecessors.

Reverend

Reverend (pronounced rev-ruhnd (U) or rev-er-uhnd (non-U))

(1) A title of respect applied or prefixed to the name of a member of the clergy or a religious order (initial capital letter).

(2) Worthy to be revered; entitled to reverence.

(3) Pertaining to or characteristic of the clergy.

(4) In informal use, a member of the Christian clergy; a minister.

1400–1450: From the late Middle English reverend (also as reverent) (worthy of deep respect, worthy to be revered (due to age, character etc)), from the Middle French révérend, from the Old French, from the Latin future passive participle reverendus (he who is worthy of being revered; that is to be respected), gerundive of reverērī (to stand in awe of, respect, honor, fear, be afraid of), from the deponent verb revereor (I honor, revere).  The construct of reverērī was re- (in this case used probably as an intensive prefix) + vereri (stand in awe of, fear, respect) from the primitive Indo-European root wer- (perceive, watch out for).

As a courteous or respectful form of address for clergymen, it has been in use since the late fifteenth century, a variation of the earlier reverent which had been used in this sense since the later fourteenth century; it was prefixed to names by the 1640s and the abbreviation Rev. was introduced in the 1690s, becoming accepted and common by the 1720s.  One historical quirk is that the vice-chancellor of the University of University is formally styled The Reverend the Vice-Chancellor even if not a member of the clergy, a relic of the days when the appointee always held some ecclesiastical office.

The Roman Catholic Church

Cardinal George Pell (b 1941).  When appointed bishop and subsequently archbishop, he was styled The Most Reverend but upon becoming a cardinal, although remaining an archbishop, a cardinal's form of address prevailed and he was instead styled His Eminence.

Religious sisters can be styled Reverend Sister although this is now rare outside Italy unless the order to which the sister is attached is under the authority of the Vatican and not the local bishop.  Abbesses of convents are styled The Reverend Mother Superior.  Deacons are styled The Reverend Deacon if ordained permanently to the diaconate.  Seminiarians are styled The Reverend Mister if ordained to the diaconate and prior to being ordained presbyters.  Priests are styled variously The Reverend or The Reverend Father according to tradition whether diocesan, in an order of canon regulars, in a monastic or a mendicant order or clerics regular.  Priests appointed to grades of jurisdiction above pastor are styled The Very Reverend (there are appointments such as  vicars general, judicial vicars, ecclesiastical judges, episcopal vicars, provincials of religious orders of priests, rectors or presidents of colleges and universities, priors of monasteries, deans, vicars forane, archpriests et al).  Certain appointments such as Protonotaries Apostolic, Prelates of Honour and Chaplains of His Holiness are styled The Reverend Monsignor.  Abbots of monasteries are styled The Right Reverend.  Bishops and archbishops are styled The Most Reverend (In some countries of the British Commonwealth, only archbishops are styled The Most Reverend while bishops are styled The Right Reverend).  The word is not used in relation to cardinals or the pope.

In the Roman Catholic Church, Reverend (and its variations) appears only in writing; in oral use other titles and styles of address are used except in the rare cases of ceremonies where the entire style of an individual is recited.

The Orthodox Church

Lindsay Lohan as a Reverend Sister in Machete (2010).

Deacons are styled The Reverend Deacon (traditionally only in writing and not universally applied).  A married priest is The Reverend Father; a monastic priest is The Reverend Hieromonk; a protopresbyter is The Very Reverend Father; and an archimandrite is either The Very Reverend Father (Greek practice) or The Right Reverend Father (Russian practice).  For most purposes all may be addressed as Father and the most comprehensive (and multi-lingual) style guide is that published by the office of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.  Abbots and abbesses are styled The Very Reverend Abbot or Abbess and are addressed as Father and Mother respectively.  A bishop is referred to as The Right Reverend Bishop and addressed as Your Grace (or Your Excellency).  An archbishop or metropolitan, whether or not he is the head of an autocephalous or autonomous church, is styled The Most Reverend Archbishop or Metropolitan and addressed as Your Eminence.  Heads of autocephalous and autonomous churches with the title Patriarch are styled differently and the word reverend shouldn’t be used; the actual use varies according to the customs of their respective churches and is always Beatitude but sometimes also Holiness and, exceptionally, All-Holiness (if reverend appears by error, it’s not considered offensive).

The Anglican Communion (including the Episcopalian churches)

Deacons are styled as The Reverend, The Reverend Deacon, or The Reverend Mr, Mrs or Miss (and Ms has been added to the style guides of the more liberal branches).  Priests (vicars padres, rectors and curates et al) are usually styled as The Reverend, The Reverend Father or Mother (even if not a religious) or The Reverend Mr, Mrs, Miss or Ms.  Heads of some women's religious orders are styled as The Reverend Mother (even if not ordained).  Canons are often styled as The Reverend Canon.  Deans are usually styled as The Very Reverend (although this can vary for those attached to larger cathedrals).  Archdeacons are usually styled as The Venerable.  Priors of monasteries may be styled as The Very Reverend.  Abbots of monasteries may be styled as The Right Reverend.  Bishops are styled as The Right Reverend.  Archbishops and primates and (for historical reasons) the Bishop of Meath and Kildare are styled as The Most Revered and there is no difference in the style afforded to the twenty-six bishops of the old bishoprics with seats in the House of Lords.

The first and second women in the Anglican Church to be appointed as Most Reverend Archbishops Kay Goldsworthy (b 1956; Archbishop of Perth in the Province of Western Australia since 2018) (left) & Melissa Skelton (b 1951; Metropolitan and Archbishop in the Anglican Church of Canada since 2018) (right).

Concordat

Concordat (pronounced kon-kawr-dat)

(1) An agreement or compact, especially an official one Agreement between things; mutual fitness; harmony.

(2) A formal agreement between two parties, especially between a church and a state.

(3) In Roman Catholic canon law, a pact, treaty or agreement between the Holy See and a secular government regarding the regulation of church matters.  In early use it was sometimes a personal agreement between pope and sovereign.

1610–1620: From the the sixteenth century French conciordat, replacing concordate from the Medieval Latin concordātum (something agreed), a noun use of the Latin concordatum, neuter of concordātus, past participle of concordāre (to be in agreement; to be of one mind), from concors (genitive concordis) (of one mind)  from concors (genitive concordis) (of one mind).  The original definition in Roman Catholic canon law was "an agreement between Church and state on a mutual matter".  Concordat is a noun, the noun plural is concordats and concordatory is an adjective.  Concord dates from 1250-1300, from the Middle English and Old French concorde from the Latin concordia, (harmonious), genitive concordis (of the same mind, literally “hearts together”).  Concordat is a noun and concordant an adjective; the noun plural is concordats.

The Duce, Benito Mussolini (1883–1945; Prime Minister of Italy 1922-1943) and Cardinal Pietro Gasparri (1852–1934; Cardinal Secretary of State 1914-1930) signing the Lateran Concordat in 1929.

The concordat, a formal agreement between the Holy See and a sovereign state, dates from a time when the relationship between the Church and sovereign entities was different than what now exists.  Indeed, the dynamics of the relationships have changed much over the centuries but, at any given moment, concordats have always been practical application of Church-state relations and, like all politics, were an expression of the art of the possible, a concordat not necessarily what a pope wanted, but certainly the best he could at the time manage, the best known tending to be the controversial, notably (1) the treaty of 1801 with Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815), (2) the Lateran Accord agreed in 1929 with Mussolini which created the modern city-state of the Vatican and which was the final step in Italian unification and (3) The Reich Concordat of 1933, the accommodation with Hitler’s Germany which was supposed to resolve the issue of relations which had been unsettled since Otto von Bismarck's (1815-1989; Chancellor of the German Empire 1871-1890) time but which Berlin repeatedly violated.

La Signature du Concordat aux Tuileries 15 juillet 1801 (The Signing of the Concordat at the Tuileries, 15 July 1801) (1803-1804) by François Pascal Simon Gérard (1770–1837) (titled as Baron Gérard in 1809); the original hangs in the Musée National des Châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon, Versailles.  

At least those violations weren’t wholly unexpected.  Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (1876–1958; Pope Pius XII 1939-1958) had been Apostolic Nuncio (ambassador; 1926-1929) to Berlin and was Cardinal Secretary of State (foreign minister; 1930–1939) when the Reich Concordat was signed and he was under no illusion.  When it was said to him that the Nazis were unlikely to honor the terms, he replied with a smile that was true but that they would probably not violate all its articles “at the same time”.  The sardonic realism would serve the cardinal well in the years ahead when often he would required to choose the lesser of many competing evils.  Some though, for a while, retained hope if not faith.  As late as 1937, Archbishop Conrad Gröber (1872–1948; Archbishop of Freiburg 1932-1948) thought the Reich Concordat proof that “…two powers, totalitarian in their character, can find agreement, if their domains are separate”.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945), another cynic though then still a realist, viewed the concordat much as Hermann Göring (1893-1946) would in his trial at Nuremberg describe all the treaties executed by the Nazis: “so much toilet paper”.  Actually an admirer of the Roman Catholic Church which had survived two-thousand years of European rough and tumble, he was resigned to a co-existence but one on his terms, noting the day would come when there would be a reckoning with “those black crows”.

Two of the twentieth century's great survivors, German vice chancellor Franz von Papen (1879-1969) (second from left) and the Holy See's secretary of state Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) (head of the table) meet in the Vatican on 20 July 1933 to sign the Reischskonkordat which some six weeks later was ratified by the Nazi-dominated Reichstag (the German parliament).  The cardinal calculated the Church would gain from the arrangement but had few illusions about the Nazis.  Upon being told the Nazis would probably violate the agreement, he agreed but observed they probably wouldn't violate all of the clauses "at the same time".  Later when being driven through Rome where he saw two men fighting in the street, he remarked to his companion "I imagine they've probably just signed a concordat".

That’s not to say there haven’t always been theorists who wandered a bit beyond the possible.  After the Reformation, there were those in the Church who held that the Church sits above the state in all things (the “regalist” position), while others (maintaining the “curialist” position) held that although the Church is superior to the state, the Church may grant certain privileges to the state through agreements such as concordats.  In the modern age, the accepted understanding of concordats is that the Church and the various sovereign states are both legal entities able to enter into bilateral agreements.  Concordats are thus no different than other treaties & agreements in that being executed under international law, they are enforceable according to legal principles.  Church and state may in some ways not be co-equal but canon law does recognise the two exist in distinct spheres and is explicit in respecting the bilateral agreements that the Holy See has entered into with other nation-states.  The Code of Canon Law states unambiguously that concordats override any contrary norms in canon law: “The canons of the Code neither abrogate nor derogate from the agreements entered into by the Apostolic See with nations or other political societies. These agreements therefore continue in force exactly as at present, notwithstanding contrary prescripts of this Code.”  This is an unexceptional statement familiar in many constitutional arrangements where two legal systems interact, the need being to define, where conflict may exist, which has precedence and is no more than an application of a legal maxim known to both canon and secular law: pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be honored).  Concordats can both protect and clarify the rights of the Church by precisely defining relationship between the Church and a state, expressed by the Second Vatican Council’s (Vatican II 1962-1965) pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, Gaudium et spes (Joay and Hope) in the statement:

“The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it.  She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority.  She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods.”

In other words, “if you can’t beat them, join them”, or, at least, enter into peaceful co-existence with them, a position in the modern age possible, if not uncontroversial with sovereign and sub-national entities notionally with Catholic majority populations (eg Bavaria 1966, Austria 1969, Italy 1985) but also with countries where Christians exist only as tiny minorities (eg Tunisia 1964, Morocco 1985, Israel 1993).  Nor does a concordat need to be a complete codification, the agreement between the Holy See and Tel Aviv noting that in certain matters, agreement had not been reached and discussions need to continue.  Such “framework” or “stepping-stone” agreements have been in the diplomatic toolkit for centuries but they’re a statement of professed intent and in the decades since there’s been little apparent progress in many of the unresolved matters important to the Holy See regarding physical property in the Holy Land and the “working document” was never ratified by the Israeli parliament (the Knesset).  At least partially filling this diplomatic lacuna was something which has thus far proved a coda to the Holy See’s official recognition in 2012 of the State of Palestine.  In 2015, The Vatican concluded a concordat with “the State of Palestine” (sic), supporting a two-state solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel “on the basis of the 1967 borders”.  According to Rome, the provisions in the agreement concern technical (ie financial & legal) aspects of the legal status of Catholic facilities and personnel on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  That may be as boringly procedural as it sounds but what’s aroused interest is that the Vatican has refused to publish the text or comment on the details, thus arousing suspicion that the treaty between with the Palestinians might, at least in part, contradict the earlier concordat with Israel.  From Washington to Tel Aviv, many are interested in the small print.

Rome 1929: The Duce reads the Lateran Concordat's small print.

Interestingly, Vatican II struck the term concordat from canon law, apparently in a nod to the Council's declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis humanae (Of the Dignity of the Human Person) which mused on the evolution of a “…different model of relations between the Vatican and various states [which] is still evolving.”  Whatever might have been intended to be the implications of that, it reappeared with the Polish Concordat of 1993 and seems to be here to stay.

Ghost

Ghost (pronounced gohst)

(1) The soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.

(2) A mere shadow or semblance; a trace; a remote possibility; a faint trace or possibility of something.

(3) A spiritual being; the principle of life; soul; spirit (sometimes initial capital letter).

(4) A secondary image, especially one appearing on a television screen as a white shadow, caused by poor or double reception or by a defect in the receiver (also called ghosting).

(5) In photography, a faint secondary or out-of-focus image in a photographic print or negative resulting from reflections within the camera lens (also called ghost image).

(6) In optics, a series of false spectral lines produced by a diffraction grating with unevenly spaced lines.

(7) In metalworking, a streak appearing on a freshly machined piece of steel containing impurities.

(8) In pathology, a red blood cell having no hemoglobin.

(9) In tax-avoidance and other frauds, a fictitious employee, business etc, fabricated especially for the purpose of manipulating funds.

(10) In literature (and especially quasi-literature), as ghost-write, to write a book, speech etc for another often without attribution.

(11) In engraving, to lighten the background of a photograph before engraving.

(12) In informal use (often associated with social media), suddenly to end all contact with a person without explanation, especially a romantic relationship; to leave a social event or gathering suddenly without saying goodbye.

(13) In digital technology, to remove comments, threads, or other digital content from a website or online forum without informing the poster, keeping them hidden from the public but still visible to the poster.

(14) In bibliography, as ghost edition, an entry recorded in a bibliography of which no actual proof exists.

Pre 900: From the Middle English gost, gast & goost (breath; good or bad spirit, angel, demon; person, man, human being", in Biblical use "soul, spirit, life”), from the Old English gāst (breath, soul, spirit, ghost, being), related to the Old High German gaist & geist (spirit) and the Sanskrit hēda (fury, anger).  The Proto-West Germanic gaist was derived from the Proto-Germanic gaistaz (ghost, spirit, (source also of the Old Saxon gest, the Old Frisian jest, the Middle Dutch gheest, the Dutch geest & the German Geist (spirit, ghost))), from the primitive Indo-European ǵhéysd-os, from ǵhéysd- (anger, agitation) and was cognate with the Scots ghaist (ghost), the Saterland Frisian Gäist (spirit), the West Frisian geast (spirit), the Dutch geest (spirit, mind, ghost), the German Geist (spirit, mind, intellect), the Swedish gast (ghost), the Sanskrit हेड (héḍa), (anger, hatred) and the Persian زشت‎ (zešt) (ugly, hateful, disgusting).  There’s no documentary evidence but the ultimate root is conjectured to be the primitive Indo-European gheis-, used in forming words involving the notions of excitement, amazement, or fear (source also of Sanskrit hedah (wrath), the Avestan zaesha- (horrible, frightful), the Gothic usgaisjan and the Old English gæstan (to frighten).  Ghost is a noun & verb (and used imaginatively as an adjective), ghoster is a noun, ghostly & ghosty are adjectives, ghosting is a noun & verb and ghosted is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is ghosts.

Ghost is the English representative of West Germanic words for "supernatural being" and in Christian writings in Old English it was used to render the Latin spiritus, a sense preserved by the early translators of the Bible in “Holy Ghost”.  The sense of a "disembodied spirit of a dead person", especially imagined as wandering among the living or haunting them, is attested from the late fourteenth century, a meaning-shift which returned the word to what was its probable prehistoric sense.  Most Indo-European words for "soul or spirit" also double with reference to supernatural spirits.  Many have also a base sense of "appearance" (the Greek phantasma; the French spectre; the Polish widmo, from Old Church Slavonic videti (to see), the Old English scin, the Old High German giskin (originally "appearance, apparition”), related to the Old English scinan & the Old High German skinan (to shine)).  Other concepts exist, including the French revenant (literally "returning" (from the other world)), the Old Norse aptr-ganga, (literally "back-comer") & the Breton bugelnoz (literally "night-child”).  The Latin manes (spirits of the dead) was probably a euphemism.

The gh- spelling appeared early in the fifteenth century in Caxton, influenced by Flemish and Middle Dutch gheest, but was rare in English before mid-1500s.  The sense of a "slight suggestion, mere shadow or semblance" (as in ghost image, ghost of a chance etc) is noted from the 1610s; the sense of "one who secretly does work for another" is from 1884 and ghost-write was a 1922 back-formation from the earlier (1919) ghost-writing.  The American Indian ghost dance was first noted in 1890, ghost town is from 1908, ghost story dates from 1811, the now extinct ghost-word (apparent word or false form in a manuscript due to a blunder) is from 1886.  The “ghost in the machine” was English philosopher Gilbert Ryle's (1900-1976) 1949 description of René Descartes' (1596-1650) mind-body dualism and the phrase "to give up the ghost" (to die or prepare to die) was well-known in Old English.  Synonyms include phantom, devil, demon, soul, shadow, spectre, vision, vampire, apparition, revenant, appearance, haunt, visitor, shade, spook, poltergeist, phantasm, wraith, daemon & manes.  There are a surprising number of uses of ghost, ghosted, ghosting etc said to be associated modern or internet slang covering fields as diverse as linguistic techniques and the art & science of smoking weed.  However, the most commonly used describes someone with whom one has been in contact suddenly stops responding, disappearing, as it were, like a ghost.  This can happen in conjunction with unfriending etc but can be an act in isolation.

One day, there may be Lindsay Lohan: The autobiography.

Ghostwriters (also as ghost-writer) are professional writers hired to create content (books, columns, posts or any other text-focused item), the authorship of which will ultimately will be credited to another.  Ghostwriters are used for a number of reasons including constraints of time, a lack of interest in the project (though not the profits) or, typically, a lack of the necessary skill with the written word.  Ghostwriting contracts can vary but focus on including terms of payment, non-disclosure of involvement, the notional author’s exercise of veto over all or some of the content and the rights to the finished work.  Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) is known to have used ghostwriters on several occasions and the arrangements are not always concealed, Paris Hilton (b 1981) in her 2023 memoir's acknowledgments thanking the ghostwriter who “helped me find my voice”.  Mr Trump made no mention of his ghostwriters.    

Holy Ghost vs Holy Spirit in Blblical Translation

Pentecostés (Descent of the Holy Spirit) (circa 1545), oil on canvas by Tiziano Vecelli (or Vecellio), (circa 1489-1576; known in English as Titian), basalica of Santa Maria della Salute, Venice.

The Trinity is one of Christianity’s central doctrines, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in the one Godhead.  One of the most important Christian affirmations about God, it’s rooted in the idea God came to meet Christians in a threefold figure: (1) as Creator, Lord of the history of salvation, Father, and Judge, as revealed in the Old Testament; (2) as the Lord who, in the incarnated figure of Jesus Christ, lived among human beings and was present in their midst as the “Resurrected One”; and (3) as the Holy Spirit, whom they experienced as the helper or intercessor in the power of the new life.  In the Roman Catholic Church, the Sign of the Cross is made in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

It’s a myth that prior to the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965), the Third Person of the Trinity was always referred to in English as the Holy Ghost and one of the council’s decisions was to replace this with Holy Spirit.  Although it’s true Pope Pius XII (1876–1958, pope 1939-1958) authorized several bilingual rites which included Holy Spirit, this was merely procedural and a formalization of processes for the publishing of new editions of existing works. Well before the twentieth century, the shift to Holy Spirit had become almost universal in translation although use of the older form persisted because of the reverence for tradition among some congregations (if not always the clergy) and a fondness, particularly in the Anglican community, for earlier translations, especially the Book of Common Prayer (1549-1622) and the King James version of the Bible (KJV: 1611).

The change reflects the evolution of words. In the theological context, Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit mean exactly the same thing.  The early translators were influenced by ghost being of Germanic origin and, as the Old English gast inherited the original meaning “soul, life, breath, good or bad spirit, angel or demon”, they used gast to translate the Latin Spiritus, thus Holy Ghost.  Although the more modern sense of a disembodied dead person dates from the late fourteenth century, it long remained rare and when translating the Bible into English the scholars behind the KJV opted mostly to use Holy Ghost which enjoys ninety entries compared with seven for Holy Spirit.  Either as literature or theology, there’s nothing in the texts to suggest any difference of meaning between the two, the conclusion of biblical scholars being the choices were wholly arbitrary and probably an unintentional consequence of the KJV being translated from the Greek into English by different committees.  One committee translated hagion pneuma as Holy Spirit while the other preferred Holy Ghost and when the work of the two bodies was combined, the differences remained.  In English, the meaning shift of ghost was induced essentially by its adoption in literature and popular culture, the sense long universally understood to be that of the spectre of a deceased person or a demonic apparition, hardly an association the church found helpful.  It hasn’t wholly been replaced however, some editions of the Book of Common Prayer still are printed with the phrase “He may receive the benefits of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience.”

Unrelated to etymological matters however, there is one fine theological point about the Trinity.  It took some time for the Patristic Fathers (the early Christian writers of the period generally considered to run from the end of New Testament times or end of the Apostolic Age (circa 100 AD) to either the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) or the Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD)) to work out the Trinity was three persons, but one God.  The Old Testament foretold the visit to earthly life of the Messiah, but did not name him explicitly as Jesus, seeing the Holy Spirit as a manifestation of God, but did not see Him as a separate person of the one Godhead.  Despite the implications of that, at least since Augustine (354–430), it’s never been an orthodox view the Old Testament should be thought incomplete.  Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022), always one to find a fine theological point, noted “Christians do not read the Old Testament for its own sake but always with Christ and through Christ, as a voyage to Truth through continuing Revelation.”

A century apart: Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost (left) and Paris Hilton's Rolls-Royce Ghost (Right).

The Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost (1906-1926) was the car which cemented the company's reputation and sometime during its production, it may well have deserved to be regarded "the best car in the world", at term which long ago ceased to be useful but Rolls-Royce have probably always deserved to be thought "the best-made cars in the world".  Some might have matched the quality of the fit and finish but it's doubtful any have ever done it better.  Such was the reputation the Silver Ghost quickly gained that the name overtook the line.  Originally, the Silver Ghost had been but one model in a range available on their standard (40/50 hp) chassis but the name so captured the public imagination that eventually, the factory relented and when the first of the Phantom line was release in 1926, Silver Ghost for all the 40/50 cars it became.  Perhaps surprisingly, although in the subsequent century there were many uses of the "silver" adjective (Silver Wraith, Silver Dawn, Silver Cloud, Silver Shadow, Silver Spirit, Silver Spur & Silver Seraph), it wasn't until 2009 the "Ghost" name was revived and it remains in production still, the line augmented in 2011 by the Ghost Extended Wheelbase (EWB).

RAF Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost armored car, Iraq, circa 1936.

The Silver Ghost also had what may seem an improbable career as a military vehicle, the factory eventually building 120 armored cars on the chassis which was famously robust because of the need to survive on the often rough roads throughout the British Empire.  Although the period of intended service on the Western Front was shortened when the war of movement anticipated upon the outbreak of hostilities soon gave way to the effectively static trench warfare, the machines proved ideally suited to operations in the Middle East, the most famous the squadron used by TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia; 1888–1935) in battles against the Ottoman forces during World War I (1914-1918).  Lawrence remarked the Rolls-Royces were “more valuable than rubies” in desert combat and that he’d be content with one for the rest of his life were it to be supplied with tyres and petrol, the big, heavy Ghosts chewing rapidly through both.  In many parts of the empire, numbers of the armoured cars remained in service well into the 1930s, valued especially by the Raj in India.  The last one was retired from service with the Irish Free State in 1944, new tyres being unobtainable.

Sedevacantism

Sedevacantism (pronounced sed-ah- vey-kuhnt-niz-uhm)

In Christianity, the belief (maintained by a faction of conservative Roman Catholics) that the present occupant of the Holy See is not the true pope and the see has been vacant since the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II (1962-1965)).

Circa 1965: the construct was the Latin phrase sede vacante +‎ -ism.  The Latin phrase sede vacante (vacant chair) is from canon law term sedes vacans which describes the period during which there is no appointee to an episcopal see.  It thus applies to any vacant bishopric but is most associated with that of the Bishop of Rome (the Roman Catholic Pope) where it’s part of formal processes associated with any interregnum.  The construct of sedes (seat, chair (and used sometimes also to mean “place, residence, settlement, habitation, abode”)) was sedeō (I sit) +‎ -ēs (the suffix used to form a third-declension feminine abstract noun designating the result of an action from a verb root or conceived root form).  Etymologists note that like caedēs (slaughter) from caedō (I kill or cut), sedes is an outlier and like the proto-Italian, Latin tended not productively to form nouns from verbs by changing the vowel grade.  They consider the word's lengthened grade as similar to the Proto-Germanic sētiją (seat) and likely ultimately from a common source although the origin remains murky.  Vacante was the ablative (masculine, feminine & neuter) singular of vacāns (emptying, vacating; idling) (genitive vacantis), the present active participle of vacō.  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).  Sedevacantism and sedevacantist are nouns; the common noun plural is Sedevacantists.

Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) is a very busy man and it not know if he has much time to open the Bible but it may be that recently he felt constrained to turn to Galatians 6:7 and ponder the passage in which Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Galatians wrote: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”  King James Version (KJV, 1611).  Francis certainly has been sowing.  Recently, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (the DDF, the latest name for the Inquisition) issued a statement confirming an adult who identifies as transgender can receive the sacrament of Baptism under the same conditions as any adult, as long as “there is no risk of causing scandal or confusion to other Catholics”.  To clarify the matter, the DDF added that children or adolescents experiencing transgender identity issues may also receive Baptism “if well prepared and willing”.  Within days of that announcement, Francis played host to a group of transgender women (many of them sex workers or migrants from Latin America) who were among the 1200 impoverished or homeless who attended a luncheon held in the papal audience hall (the Vatican Press Office noting the catering extended to “a full meal and dessert”) to mark the Church’s “World Day of the Poor”.  Apparently, the pontiff has been in contact with the transgender women since he organized assistance for the during the COVID-19 lockdowns when they were unable to practice their trade.  Meetings are said now to be monthly with His Holiness providing funds, medicine and shampoo.

A pope giving shampoo (and hopefully conditioner) to the needy need not be controversial but news of that largess came at a time when dissent was swirling about the DDF’s announcement (signed by Francis) which confirmed trans-men & women can also witness marriages and be named as godparents under certain circumstances.  In the tradition of the Inquisition, the DDF’s document was legalistic although many noticed a vague “clarification” which seemed rather to verge on the ambiguous: That for individuals with gender-identity afflictions to be baptized, it must not cause “scandal” or “disorientation”.  However, the very idea seemed to scandalize some bishops and theologians who noted there had apparently been no change to the Church’s traditional teaching that gender ideology and transgender lifestyles are a "grave disorder" in need of correction through spiritual and secular therapy.

The DDF issued its statement in response to a dubia (a respectful request for clarification regarding about certain established teachings), one of quite a few which have ended up in the Vatican’s post-box (dubias are always on paper) in this pontificate.  The most celebrated of these letters of dissent (the more searchingly serious of which are in exquisitely polite Latin) were signed by four cardinals and received in September 2016, asking (1) Whether those living in sin were now to be granted Holy Communion, (2) Whether the Church had overturned Saint John Paul II’s (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005) 1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor (The Splendor of the Truth) which laid down certain fundamentals of the Church's role in moral teaching, (3) Whether there were changes in what constituted certain sins, (4) Whether circumstances or intentions can now transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act subjectively good or defensible as a choice and (5), Whether the church no longer excludes any creative interpretation of the role of conscience and now accepts that conscience can be authorized to permit legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

Francis neither acknowledged nor replied to the cardinals' respectful dubia, perhaps wondering if the long tradition in the Church of England of hoping problems might go away if one pretends they don’t exist might be the best course to follow.  However, some months later a less deferential letter arrived in which several dozen Catholic theologians, priests and academics went further than the cardinals and formally accused Pope Francis of spreading heresy, a document the like of which hadn't been sent to a pope since the 1300s.  Stunningly, it was one step short of actually accusing the pontiff of being a heretic.

Apparently unfazed, His Holiness has continued along a path of greater inclusiveness of which “shampoo diplomacy” is a part, dealing with dissenters as he goes.  In In November 2023, it was announced he had sacked (“removed from the pastoral care of the diocese” as the Holy See puts such things) US Bishop Joseph Strickland (b 1958; Bishop of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas 2012-2023) and appointed an interim apostolic administrator.  Bishop Strickland (appointed to his position in 2012 by Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022)) is said to be one of the WWJD (what would Jesus do?) school and on 12 May 2023 had tweeted (ie to the whole world) “I believe Pope Francis is the pope, but it is time for me to say that I reject his program of undermining the Deposit of Faith.  Follow Jesus."  The tweet was enough for the Vatican to launch an investigation, in response to which on more than one occasion Bishop Strickland asserted he would not voluntarily resign.  The investigation was remarkably quick by the standards of the Holy See and early in November a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston revealed the tribunal had advised His Holiness “the continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible.”  The pope requested the bishop resign but he declined, thus the rare sacking.  Strickland stating “I believe Pope Francis is the pope” was of some significance, a clear statement he was not a sedevacantist.  Sedevacantism is a belief maintained by a faction of conservative Roman Catholics that the present occupant of the Holy See is not the true pope and the see has been vacant since the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II (1962-1965)).  The sedevacantists disapprove of the changes in Church rituals, procedures brought about by Vatican II but the essence of their movement is that popes since the death of Pope Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) have espoused one or more heresies.

Pope Francis at the traditional Wednesday General Audience, St. Peter's Square, Vatican City, 8 March 2023.

Dissenters and sedevacantists are two problems facing the pope but he needs also to deal with rumblings from those who may well believe they are “working towards Francis” (or at least where they would like Francis to go).  What shampoo diplomacy seems to have done is unleash forces which would like to impose on the Church a “modernizing” beyond anything which would have been recognizable as an implication of Vatican II.  In late October 2023, the Vatican acted with rare decisiveness to block attempts by German prelates to change doctrine regarding homosexual relationships and female clergy.  Sedevacantism wasn’t mentioned by Rome by the other “S word” appeared, the German hierarchy warned they were “approaching schism” in their moves to diverge from the Catholic Church's teachings and that “radical propositions” such as the approval of homosexual relationships and the ordination of women priests must be abandoned.

What presumably also miffed Rome was that the objectionable German document was entitled “German Synodal Way”, something chosen deliberately as a reference to Pope Francis's global “Synod on Synodality”.  That was either cheeky or provocative but having sown the wind, Francis is reaping the whirlwind; having given the Germans ideas, he now has to draw the line and draw it he did, telling the bishops in Bonn that regarding the matters they are contesting: “there is no possibility of arriving at a different assessment”, adding it “…must be made clear from the outset that these issues are of varying relevance and cannot all be placed on the same level.”  Whether or not it much mollified the Germans, it was further noted that while some matters cannot even be discussed, other “…aspects can be subjected to joint in-depth discussion.”