Does Aquinas's version of the beatific vision contradict the resurrection of the body and the new creation?

If I have understood the Supplement to the Third Part of Aquinas's monumental *Summa Theologica* correctly, Aquinas argues that, following the Last Judgement, the redeemed bask in the light of God's presence in the heavens, while the earth, stripped of all animal and vegetable life, and, as far as I can tell, uninhabited, is left as a sterile accretion of gemstones, glowing with divine power. To pick one of several passages where this is laid out: >Therefore plants and animals will altogether cease after the renewal of the world... Now animals and plants were made for the upkeep of human life; wherefore it is written (Genesis 9:3): "Even as the green herbs have I delivered all flesh to you [Vulgate: 'have I delivered them all to you']." Therefore when man's animal life ceases, animals and plants should cease. But after this renewal animal life will cease in man. Therefore neither plants nor animals ought to remain. (Question 91, Article 5 ) I have deep respect for Aquinas and his writings, but this seems to contradict my understanding of the resurrection of the body and the 'new heavens and a new earth' as laid out in the final chapters of Revelation. The biblical account - as I understand it - speaks of the redeemed being resurrected to enjoy - in addition to the spiritual bliss of God's presence - the glory of a re-created physical universe, complete with trees, meadows, lions, horses, waterfalls, and doubtless many other things - not purged, but renewed and perfected. Is Aquinas being unscriptural at this point? Or am I misunderstanding either the philosopher or the Bible?