A question about Thomism

[Belacqua]

You've elevated a property to a form to demonstrate a dependency relationship.  If "red" and "shirt" are not in the same metaphysical class then speaking of one or the other as having priority is incoherent. 

No, it simply shows that the existence of the quality depends on the existence of something else. 

(And what do you mean by "form" here? A shape? One of Plato's Forms? Is a shirt a form, or a material object?)

Here's another example. 

Let's imagine that Socrates is pale. Then he goes out in the sun for a while and gets a suntan. 

The suntan depends for its existence on Socrates. Even though other people had tans before him, Socrates's suntan depends for its existence on him. 

If the suntan goes away, Socrates continues to exist. If Socrates goes away, then his suntan disappears also. Therefore Socrates is ontologically prior to his suntan. 

It's like claiming an actual god is greater than the mere idea of a god.

I see no relation of this claim to the idea of ontological dependency.