You are playing with fire if you start to study the writings of Modernists or "paleo-Modernists" before first studying the sound philosophy from which they departed.
What "sound philosophy"?
The sound philosophy to which I refer is that which has been handed down to us faithfully through the ages and which St. Thomas Aquinas helped to preserve and to further develop. He was not so much a philosopher himself as he was a secretary, a chronicler, a historian of
philosophia perennis, the treasure of wisdom from the greatest minds in the history of the Church.
Grace builds on nature. The Church took what was naturally good from ancient cultures, such as the Greeks and Aristotle, and through the centuries developed it. St. Thomas lived at a time when new ancient manuscripts came to light, and together with contemporaries such as Duns Scotus, a clearer vision of God's revelation through nature was made possible.
It is this very thing that erstwhile Fr. Ratzinger complained about, as you have mentioned here, Geremia.
My warning is to be careful not to pay attention to that which Ratzinger did in his youth, because it will perhaps do the same to you that it did to him. Modernism is very slick and very deceptive.
One of its symptoms is, that you don't know that you're infected.
Magisterial docuмents have approved St. Thomas's theology and philosophy. Pope Leo XIII quoted Pope Innocent VI in his encyclical Æterni Patris on St. Thomas Aquinas:His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.
Since Modernists reject St. Thomas, they are at the very least suspect of error.
As Pope St. Pius X wrote in Pascendi:Further let professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment.
All this is true. My caution is in regards to the FOUR quotes you have in the OP where you offer for discussion the writings of "paleo-Modernists" and their ilk, who attempt to undermine the reputation of St. Thomas and his doctrine.
Fr. Ratzinger was not respectful at all of Thomistic Phil. or Thomism (somewhat misnomers because St. Thomas was not really a philosopher as much as he was a chronicler of sound philosophy and a great student thereof), and his enduring disrespect has perpetuated
the unclean spirit of Vat.II through his work under the great deception of JPII, and then his own stint as pope (2005-2013) and now as the first-ever "Pope-Emeritus" (Benedict).
I don't suppose there is much chance that you would succuмb to this yourself, Geremia, but it is possible, so I wanted to warn you. You should study the available courses in
philosophia perennis first, before you delve into any critique or research of the dangerous material.
But this warning is mostly for other readers who might see this thread, because I know they are out there. Some have already identified themselves on this forum. It is human nature to want to skip preparations and go right into the thick of battle. But without the proper study in advance the wiles and snares of the devil are all over this material that you have started to quote in the OP.
Most all of the prominent exponents of 'evolution' today are atheists because they read as teenagers the books of key figures who promoted it, and thereby they became atheist. In ages past, atheism was universally regarded as foolhardy or intellectual insanity. But the demigods Charlie have laid the groundwork for future generations to park their thinking caps in the
RED ZONE with impunity, and without fear of reprimand from the 'authorities' of academia today, who are largely corrupted. This is how Ratzinger got his education, and why to him, the study of St. Thomas was too repulsive and "closed-minded."
This is the essential problem in discussing topics such as Catholic doctrine with atheists today -- they cannot comprehend your words because of the deficiency in their basic modes of thinking.
Don't let that corruption into your mind in the first place and you can save yourself from the pernicious consequences.
.
.