No,its not.
It is “his” understanding of history that subsequent converts Episcopalian and Lutheran have since embraced. Cardinal Newman does give the appropriate theological responses into the kinds of queries you raise.
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_feb98/Newman.html
His version of history reads into actual history to find things not there. The RCC is well known for practicing eisegesis in its understanding of things. That is the RCC reads into the text to “see” hidden meaning not intended by the author. It leads to bad and false theology as witnessed in Roman Catholicism.