On interpreting St. Thomas' thoughts in the Summa Theologiae?

This post is related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/95124/how-should-one-read-the-summa-theologiae In Peter Turner's answer to the question posed in the above link, he states: >The arguments against are listed first, so everything St. Thomas does not think are the objections. Everything else is what he does think is true. >The "On the Contrary" part is not always there, but usually is a summation of the refutations. In light of this, I ask: **(i.) If one is going to quote a thought of St. Thomas (say, in a book)---may one quote from the *Summa* as coming from St. Thomas---that which begins, "On the contrary,"?** For example, in reference to [IIa-IIæ Q32 A5. *Whether almsgiving is a matter of precept?*](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3032.htm#article5) , > **On the contrary,** No man is punished eternally for omitting to do what is not a matter of precept. But some are punished eternally for omitting to give alms, as is clear from Matthew 25:41-43. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept. may I quote the above as a thought coming from St. Thomas? Regarding the next paragraph, I'm pretty sure that I may say something like: > St. Thomas says: "As love of our neighbor is a matter of precept, whatever is a necessary condition to the love of our neighbor is a matter of precept also. Now the love of our neighbor requires that not only should we be our neighbor's well-wishers, but also his well-doers, according to 1 John 3:18: 'Let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth.' And in order to be a person's well-wisher and well-doer, we ought to succor his needs: this is done by almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept...." Finally, regarding "Spiritual Alms", **(ii.) is it safe to assume that the terms "Spiritual Alms" and the more current, "Spiritual Works of Mercy", are synonymous?**