[Maximilian]

If anything destroyed the "Thomistic foundation" of Catholic philosophy, it was the dablers in the stertile neo-Thomism of the 1950s, which was so absorbed with jargon that it could not bother to make itself clear.

Isn't this a perfect description of the pope's writings, and wasn't he precisely a member of the generation you describe? Jargon is his watchword and incomprehensibility is his motif. He wrote "Love and Responsibility" back in the time frame you are describing, and it perfectly matches your criteria for what really killed Thomism.

[RobbyS]

I suggest you go into your attack and dig out some of the philosophy textbooks they used in Catholic colleges in the 1950s. It is impossible to use these book to approach and challenge the worldview of modern philosophers. To be sure, the fault was also in the modern philosopher who refused to acknowledge how much commom ground was provided by Aristotle.But few textbooks acknwledge how hard it is for the modern student sufficiently to ground himself in Aristotle's logic and metaphysics and to understand that St. Thomas had a very different way of looking at things. It wasn't until read read Gilson that I understood something of the intellectual war in which St. Thomas was engaged and
how limited a use we can make of the weapons he forged.

[TradicalRC]

The only encyclical I read from cover to cover was Fides et Ratio and I found it rather cogent and profound.