Absolutely not. I already answered as to why just the idea of "redefinition" is not Orthodox here.
Okay, I'll eat crow and grant that you did address their rebuttal.
Now, regarding your rebuttal of their rebuttal: I've seen in reading various Orthodox sources and discussions on this forum the very common argument that we can accept as Orthodox only that language and those concepts that have their origination within the Orthodox Tradition, that we must reject as heretical anything else imported from outside. I just don't buy that argument, otherwise I would have to side with the Judaizers against St. Paul and advocate a return to a strictly Judaic understanding of the Christian Gospel, since this is really the only understanding that developed organically from within the Tradition the Apostles inherited. I would have to reject St. John's identity of Christ with the Logos of Greek philosophy in the first chapter of his Gospel. I would have to reject the writings of St. Justin Martyr for his attempts to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christian revelation. I would have to reject the First Ecumenical Council for their decision to borrow the term homoousios
from the Greek philosophers so these holy Fathers could formulate an Orthodox understanding of the deity of Jesus Christ. I would also have to reject the work of such luminaries as St. Paul the Apostle, Ss. Cyril and Methodios, St. Innocent of Alaska and his protege, St. Innocent of Japan, who all sought to introduce Christ to their audiences using the languages of their audiences (language being much more than mere semantics). But since the Church has such a tradition of borrowing words and concepts from heterodox and pagan sources and redefining them to give them Orthodox meanings, how can I find acceptable your argument that the Church cannot do the same with the language of the BCP? In this case, it may not be the best course of action, considering the more organically Orthodox Western Rite liturgies we do have, but doing so is in no way contrary to Orthodox Tradition.
(Note the key word contrary
Now, to your charge that the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is a heretical liturgy (making those who approve its use heretics by definition), the charge that this board's moderator has asked you formally to defend: your own opinion that the liturgy is heretical is not sufficient.
So far, this is all I have seen from you. Such a charge of heresy requires more formal substantiation from a hierarchical authority, be that a synod, a canon, or the consensus of the Fathers. If you can provide us that--i.e., proclamation by a synod or a canon--then maybe we will deem this defense acceptable. I must say again, however, that mere repetition of your own opinion is not sufficient to substantiate that something accepted by a synod of the AOCA is heretical.