First, there is the influence of the notion of 'Christian philosophy' as it was developed by Gilson. Gilson is not always consistent in spelling out what he means by 'Christian philosophy', but some of his descriptions tend to blur the distinction between philosophy and theology. Secondly, new interpretations by e.g. de Lubac and Chenu about the relation between the natural and the supernatural, especially with regard to the finis ultimus,led to the same effect. They criticized Cajetan for his views on the relation between the natural and the supernatural end of human life, but they did so by misrepresenting him. In my view, Aquinas does not hold everything true in virtue of revelation.
Scholastic theology sees itself on the analogy of the Aristotelian scientia.
If you do not know Aristotelian logic and theory of science, you will not understand even the methodological questions Aquinas is asking. I claim that Aquinas is basically an Aristotelian in his philosophy. He deepens the understanding of Aristotle's thought, makes it his own and incorporates elements from other sources on the basis of their compatibility with Aristotle. Aquinas's sources are very important and he adopts a lot from others. He didn't want to come up with new things, he mainly wanted to synthesize and assimilate what was done before him.