Re para 1: You are correct. My view are inconsistent with a parsimonious reading of Newman.

Re para 2: You ought to know I understand transubstantiation, and concur. However, you have completed ducked my distinction between the Aristotelian metaphysics presumed by "transubstantiation," and the earlier neo-platonic philosophy required to understand the Fathers' assertions about the real presence. Plato's and Aristotle's conception of "the real" are markedly different. Doctrine has developed significantly by switching the underlying philosophy used to give meaning to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 

Re para 3: And I would broaden you list of where "revelation [is] to be found" by including the full corpus of theology going back at least 3.5K years (surely we agree that revelation is to be found in the OT!). But I would add all of this is our reflection on what the Spirit has been revealing, and that in its totality it contains an unhealthy dose of human error.