You are reading things into what I said.
I overstated nothing. What's similar is there is faction who believe themselves the only source of truth and keepers of faith and there is an opposed who presents something they do not accept.
As a general principle, OK, but why pretend to be neutral when we are both Christians? There's clearly a difference between the Jewish leadership's rejection of Christ and the Orthodox neutrality on/discouragement of belief in private revelations that are by all accounts entirely unnecessary to be a good Christian. The Jewish priesthood believed they were basing their condemnation of Christ on their interpretation of the Scriptures (the "source" of truth). But we believe that Christ himself is the Truth Incarnate, through whom and only through whom we properly understand the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. And he clearly admitted as much when called on it in various ways in the Gospels. We don't give the Jews the benefit of the doubt on that matter: the Jewish leadership largely rejected him, but the entire people did not reject him. As St Paul says about humans in general in Romans 1, "they are without excuse". All of that is public revelation. It is of the substance of Christian faith. Why be neutral about it? Are you an adherent of the Jesus Seminar or something? There's no justification for being neutral unless you're straining to make a ridiculous comparison between us and the Sanhedrin.
Our acceptance or rejection of Western spiritual phenomena is based on the Orthodox faith and what is in accordance with it. If a RC has a vision which promotes a RC belief that Orthodox regard as erroneous (if not outright heretical) in terms of the publicly revealed Orthodox faith, what should the Orthodox believe about it? If an Orthodox has a vision which rejects papal infallibility, what will you or the Vatican have to say about that? Will they say "we should give it the benefit of the doubt because you never know"? Or will they say "no vision that comes from God would contradict our faith" and reject it outright? They did the latter with such visions as those of Veronica Leuken in Bayside, NY. They were judged to be contrary to RC faith and/or morals, and condemned. All we are applying is the same principle. You just don't like it because we're not jumping on your preferred bandwagon.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe there was something supernatural and "of God" in Lourdes and Fatima; I believe that because I trust the basic story and I know the positive effect their messages of increased prayer and penance have had on myself and others. I don't have all the answers regarding how to account for things like Our Lady's identification as "the Immaculate Conception", I have some ideas of why things may have happened the way they did that don't involve Satan, but it's all just a hunch. I don't claim it as the Church's opinion, it's just mine, and I'm willing to accept correction if I'm wrong. But I don't pretend for one minute that "Immaculate Conception", as RCs believe it, is an Orthodox doctrine, or that it (or other "revelations" that give credence to RC beliefs or practices) may be more Orthodox than I thought because someone claimed a vision confirmed it for them. That's ludicrous. No one is required to believe any of these things. So again and again, we return to the substance of the faith.
Its one thing to dismiss what is being presented. It is entirely another to say it has its origins from Satan. This is certainly against giving every claim the benefit of the doubt. Its ok to dismiss and leave it at that. Its another to take it one step further and claim demonic,origins of what is being presented as you will be in a lot of trouble if what is presented is actually from God.
LOL. You're so into Gamaliel that you pass over his student:
Galatians 1 (RSV)
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
Exactly how much benefit of the doubt do you want? Your St Bernadette says her Lady called herself the Immaculate Conception (not "I am/was immaculately conceived" but "I am the Immaculate Conception"). You inform us of that vision. Our official response is along the lines of "The Immaculate Conception is not an Orthodox teaching, so we cannot agree that that message is of divine origin". If the Lady told St Bernadette "My son is dead, he lived to be 75 and had children with that Mary of Magdala, and your maternal grandfather is a direct descendent", would the RC's really give it any more benefit of the doubt than we did in the first example? Don't be silly.
Now, some go a little further and, identifying the Immaculate Conception as heretical, assign its origins to the demonic. I don't know that I feel comfortable saying so outright, but they have a point: what/who is the origin of heresy? One of the Matins antiphons on 15 August in the old Roman Breviary addresses the Mother of God, saying "Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou hast trampled down all the heresies in the whole world"...it's probably safe to say that heresy does not come from God. Then? Even if it is of human origin alone, it is false and is used to deceive people and lead them away from the Truth. That is the work of the demons. So it's not like it's an absolutely extreme nonsensical view. Again, we start from the faith and go forward, we don't start with visions and read backward.
How about Muhammad's ascension to heaven: should we give it the same benefit of the doubt?
No, he's not. He's applying your logic to other "private revelations" claimed by others.