Uh...gosh...I feel a little sheepish after reading Disputations' convincing post on the timelessness of Aquinas. I feel like a juror nodding my head 'yes, yes' after the last slick attorney has spoken - whether it be for the defense or the prosecution. Guess I should just shut up and read the posts and not comment, lest I prove to be a fool instead of just thought one.
As far as the Summa goes, I'm both wildly attracted to it and somewhat repelled by it. I echo Mr. Riddle's, "Myself, I cannot separate one intellectual error from another and I toss literary works aside for much less than is wrong in the cosmology of St. Thomas and I expect far, far less of them."
A sort of "time prejudice" can even be extended to the Old Testament, which can be seen as necessarily less precise vision of God given that divine revelation was still being in the process of being revealed and developed. My mother has tried to read it with much trouble, finding the myths ("there was not a worldwide flood!", she cries) side-by-side with truths an unpalatable mix. Tangentially related, I'll never forget Malcolm Muggeridge's rather amazing ability to separate historical fact from "truth", saying that it is necessary to the story that Jesus be born to a virgin, though it probably not be fact. He said the highest truths are artistic ones, though I suspect the Resurrection, and its implication for us, is one that interested him in more than just the artistic sense.