I'm well past "struggling" over this "profound truth" - I'm 20 years past the recognition that it is a lie.
I myself reject absolute divine simplicity in favor of theology imported from the East, namely, Palamism, the essence/energies dichotomy, and the idea that God in his divine essence is completely and totally beyond human comprehension. Note these doctrines are Aristotelian, but for that matter, so is Absolute Divine Simplicity and the rest of Roman Catholic Scholastic theology.
Basically, the early church used Aristotle (for example, in Irenaeus), in part because of the similiarity between Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism, but then, Gnostics started using massive amounts of Aristotle and this spooked the Church Fathers and caused a change in preference to Platonic philosophy. By the year 800 Gnosticism was no longer a serious threat to Christianity; Islamic philosophers started requesting Syriac Christian monks in Iraq and Egypt to translate into Arabic the works of Plato, but especially Aristotle, and these translations were used by the great Islamic philsophers such as Averroes, and the great Yemeni Jewish philosopher Maimonides. They were then translated into Latin, and consequently Aristotle became accessible to Latin speaking theologians for the first time in many centuries, and the result was the Scholastic period of Roman Catholic theology. Eastern Orthodox theology meanwhile continued doing what it always did, and whereas the Roman Catholics will argue the Patristic era ended with John Damascene, many Orthodox consider even recent saints like Ignatius Brianchaninov or Nicodemus the Hagiorite to be Church Fathers.
I don’t preach about this, although I might at some point if I could make the subject matter accessible to my congregation and leave out any trace of polemics. I never preach against the Roman church.