Crazy Evangelicals (like me) point to the Aquinas phenomenon as a fellow who was finding a best approach, still imperfect, to the truth of the Lord as he was genuinely being saved as a believer. Studying his history is quite illustrative and helpful. The world would be poorer without that view into salvation. What would be wrong would be to ossify Aquinas’ recorded observations into canon. If I could myself be the best extant prophet of God on earth... I wouldn’t want my works to go into a canon either. The infallible canon’s closed... it says so at the end of the book of Revelation.
But the meaning of TA's special status is debated and a source of much tsuris to some of my homies. A friend teaches, and has for many years, at, guess what, St Thomas Aquinas College. And one of the continual debates is the status of Thomas's thought with respect to framing/directing/controlling the conversation.
Interestingly those on the faculty (he reports) who are most devoted to Aquinas are least interested in the thought of JPII, presumably because he shows the "personalist" and Heideggerian approach too much.
And my friend, and many other Catholics, would agree with your attitude. I get razzed by one of the Friars here for the Heideggerian slant of my thought and exposition. BUT they let me teach nonetheless. And my impression from the one Polish friar I got to know a little (on his wall was a calendar of WWII warplanes -- you would have like this guy) was that JPII's thought arose from and reflected what was going on in Catholic theology in Poland. Good for the Poles, say I!
I DO think, that starting, probably, before Descartes western thought took a wrong turn. And I really think that more attention and openness should be given to Aristotle and the schoolmen.
And, once again, I think Feser's book would be a good place to begin. Yeah, he's combative, but he's funny with it.