There are a lot of issues that need addressing, but moderation won't allow some of them to be addressed in the proper forum.
1) I see lots of people throwing around technical terms like "apikorus" "heretic" etc., but not actually defining them. Rambam in the 3rd chapter of Hilchot Teshuvah defines them.
a. Min = heretic. i. no God, ii. no Divine Providence, iii. multiple gods; iv. corporealism; v. worships a created object as a god or as an intermediary to God.
Nope, don't see R' Farber falling into any of those. OTOH, one major division of contemporary Orthodoxy does fall afoul of the fifth definition. Which division of contemporary Jews talk about a "ממוצע המחבר"?
b. Apikorus: i. no prophecy or other Divine communication with Man; ii. refutes the prophecy of Moses (ding ding! - if Moshe didn't exist, he was no prophet); iii. God does not pay attention to the actions of man (that's another contemporary rav's view).
c. Denier of Torah: i. says that one word or letter was written by Man without direction from God; ii. one who denies the Oral Torah like Tzadok and Boethius; iii. one who claims God has overturned any mitzvah.
So, R' Farber seems to fall afoul of being an apikoros by definition ii. I don't see him actually falling afoul of c.i - even the prophets were guided by God's "wave". Certainly not c.ii - the Oral Torah is valid, whatever its origin. The Sadducees denied the whole Oral Torah, process as well as details, preferring nevuah as a source of psak
2. Disavowing: this is a broader issue. YCT via R' Helfgot and R' Katz speaking in the name of the school, disavows the ideas, but does not disavow the person. Which is probably wise, and follows precedent. Has anyone ever lost their smicha from RIETS for changes in personal ideology? Has the RCA ever cast anyone out for it? There was an attempt 20+ years ago to revoke R' Avi Weiss' membership in the RCA. Ironically, given his later IRF/YCT leadership, R' Angel was head of the RCA trying to expel him, and they couldn't find it in their hearts (or the RCA constitution) to do so.
R' Gordimer, by the same token, doesn't have a leg to stand on. He belongs to the RCA, which has not cast out Chabad. Why is that relevant? The situations are analogous. Many in Chabad hold a view that the Rambam describes as heretical. The central organization won't cast them out, because it would break up families including their own. And the RCA won't condemn them and declare them a heretical movement for a) having them as members, b) tolerating them. This is RD David Berger's "scandal of Orthodox indifference" all over again. If the RCA won't reject Chabad (and really, for institutional reasons, they can't - it would traumatize the kashrus inspection business), why would R Gordimer think that YCT must be rejected for tolerating R' Farber?
3. R Gordimer and RYA go overboard in their criticisms.
a. I don’t see RZF denying the Oral Law one bit. Not even its divine origin – that remains, even though the Written Law’s origin is demoted to the same prophetic level.
b) RYA quotes a Gemara and Rashi saying that denying that resurrection is from the Torah makes one a kofer – but I don’t see RZF denying either resurrection or its origin. And I don’t think even the Mishnah requires that one see it as coming from the Torah. I’ve never understood this need for it to be sourced in the Torah, which Rashi and (for political reasons) Rambam demand – it’s not a mitzvah, which would have to be present in the Torah, it’s a prediction of future events, which the Neviim are full of. So what’s wrong with it being sourced in the Neviim, where it’s explicit?