I'd just figure you could pick or choose what you wanted to nuance or explain in the listed items she gave us. That would amount to [imo] pretty much the same discussion with you having some your pick of what it how to elaborate. I wouldn't, as I demonstrated, not get in a fuss or distracted by a single descriptor.OK, how would you rephase RayneBeau's question so to make things workable toward having a meaningful discussion? You cited Aquinas and his "systemization" of theology. Recall that he authored over 70 works from 1245 to 1274, including his most famous work, Summa Theologica, which alone is about 1.8 million words long. I seriously doubt that RayneBeau's own personal summation of the Catholic "system" is a fair representation of this work. We can't talk about the Catholic "system" if we can't even agree what it is.
As far as T. Aquinas Summa goes, beg borrow, steal or ignore that entirely. I don't believe the OP was attempting such a comparison, it's fair game (aisi), but it wasn't my point for suggesting it. But you have lots of freedom here if you can get past whatever issue you have with a sole categorizing use adjective. I think your objection is off target to the request of the OP. Just maybe it's an intended or unintended polemical device? Big deal, those are designed to strike a nerve for attention sake. It's kind of like worrying, once worrying serves its purpose of drawing your attention, it's life is over or should be. Time to move past it and address the issues.
I don't mind a role of mediation from time to time.