Transubstantiation in modern science: How can substance change without accidents
#8
(12-06-2012, 04:52 PM)jim111 Wrote: The Scholastics, who accepted Aristotle's definition, also distinguished primary substance (substantia prima) from secondary substance (substantia secunda): the former is the individual thing — substance properly so called; the latter designates the universal essence or nature as contained in genus and species.
(New Advent)

So is transubstantiation a change in  substantia secunda?

It is a change in substantia prima.  The actual individual thing is different. It was bread, now it's not (it's Our Lord). It was wine, now it's not (it's Our Lord).

Substantia secunda is a logical distinction, looking more universally at substance-ness in a category (at least that's how I understand it, I could be wrong as this is not easy stuff). For example if any Host is concentrated, you can say "that individual piece of bread is now no longer bread." So the substanstia prima was changed.

"Breadness" has not been transformed however, so the substantia secunda has not changed.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Transubstantiation in modern science: How can substance change without accidents - by newyorkcatholic - 12-06-2012, 05:07 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)