That's fine. The issue is not correct doctrine like I said. The issue is ascribing origins to certain teachings.
Are you deliberately not listening to anything I said?
No, I am listening. But I think you are too sensitive to anything approximating criticism of Roman Catholicism.
If a Western vision teaches a "doctrine" which is manifestly un-Orthodox, we would reserve the right, if asked about it, to say it is heretical. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Your problem is with going beyond that to say that it is demonic in origin.
If it is human in origin, then nothing "supernatural" happened even though such was claimed. And yet, if it still deceives people and leads them astray from the truth, who benefits from that? Not God, and not people. Who else is there but the minions of hell?
If, however, the visions are in fact supernatural in origin, and yet teach obviously heretical doctrines, that's definitely not coming from God (who is Truth) or from people (who are not supernatural). Who else is left? Gazelles?
Look, I'm content to say "X is not Orthodox" and leave it at that. But if someone else wants to go further, it's not like there's no justification for it whatsoever. You bring up Gamaliel's policy on such matters, but what you neglect to mention is that the nascent Christian movement of his time was not considered to be a separate religion from Judaism, and the Jews themselves were not united in their opinion of it. That's very different from "What do the Orthodox think of Lourdes?" A lot more has been solidified.
Not my logic at all. Rather what he and you misunderstood to be my logic...
Maybe you could try it again. Because multiple people here seem to have understood it the way I did. And accusing everyone who disagrees with you of extremism isn't going to cut it. I'm far from anti-Catholic: if you want evidence, read my posts here over the last decade.