Well this is where I have to say I don't recognize a distinction between official and unofficial heresy, and neither do the Fathers.
The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter's name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.
- Canon 15 of the First-Second Council
So, in other words, if a bishop *officially* teaches a heresy publicly in the church, Christians are to be commended for removing themselves from him. On the other hand, if a bishop *unofficially* holds a heresy as a private opinion but *doesn't* publicly preach it, then those who separate from him are simply schismatics (and to be deposed).
Except that you haven't even gotten so far as demonstrating that a sitting hierarch privately or unofficially holds to a heresy. All you've got is that a consultative body which is not controlled by any particular bishop or synod allowed a mixed group of theologians to post their "recommendations" on a website.
Now, anyone with an ounce of logic, would realize that if Group A makes recommendation X, and Group B *ignores* recommendation X, that that means that Group B does not agree with X. This is not rocket science. If I recommend to you that you stop cutting off your nose to spite your face, and you keep sawing, then even if you don't publish a formal renouncement of my suggestions, you still obviously *do not accept* them.
Especially when, as I already posted for you, Group B (my bishops) on their actual official website have an official synodical epistle ('publicly preaching') which sets forth the clear Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church that apparently even you can't find fault with.