Hello Everyone and Slava Isusu Khrestu!
This morning at RISU (Ukrainian Information Service of Ukraine), I read an article that said that Patriarch Husar said that Ukraine should accept the Patriarchal visitation of Alexis II to Ukraine and furthermore, Husar said that he would accept him as an honorary guest. This is somewhat confusing, but I guess Husar knows what he's doing, and who said that being a Christian is something easy. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are going to criticize his actions and comments on this issue. Let me tell you that Husar has guts. I never imagined this, but he has my support anyway.
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

What Patriarch Lubomyr has said is only proper and becoming of a true Christian leader.

Besides, Patriarchs must be nice to other Patriarchs, you know!

Hopefully, they won't have a beard-pulling contest!

Alex

Wow! Good move by Husar, because it shows that he is a good man. Patriarch Alexei will probably decline a meeting, which will make him look bad. I hope that doesn't happen.

During the Papal Visit to Ukraine, Patriarch Alexei was constantly making PR msitakes, which in turn made him look bad to world Orthodoxy and Catholics alike. If Husar and Ridiger were to meet then Patriarch Alexei could see what we "Uniates" are really like, i.e. nice people (Hahahah!), and that we don't go around throwing people out of their own churches, or at least not anymore.

Daniil

Dear Daniil,

Well, I hope our people don't go around with anti-Alexei placards - like what happened prior to the papal visit there. I'm sure not . . .

I think that our Patriarch should have a guard of honour, you know, like the Swiss Guards.

Perhaps they could be called the "Husars?"

When do you think they will canonize Fr. Kostelnyk?

And do you think our Patriarch should attend that, if invited?

Alex

I wonder what certain Ukie bishops are saying from the UGCC, Kyivan Patriarchate, UAOC and Moscow Patriarchate? Do you people think that with his actions and comments he will be respected? I know some hard headed Ukies that I'm pretty sure will want an explanation of his comments. I will say an extra prayer for Husar this evening. He's going to need it and I hope he's got a lot of friends and I mean real friends. I hope everything works out for him and our church.
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

The Moscow Patriarch is coming to Ukraine whether Husar, or anyone else, likes it or not.

This is an opportunity for His Holiness the Patriarch to see that not all Ukrainian Catholics, contrary to expectation, have horns, hoofs and a tail.

And that not all of them carry side-arms with bullets marked "Russian Orthodox" on them.

He will also be able to see for himself that Russian Orthodox living in Ukraine do not need to walk around in chains and with signs saying "Schismatic" pasted to their foreheads.

And he will be able to settle forever his lingering suspicions that Russian priests are hung upon gibbets and placed in public stocks in places like L'viv.

And when the Ukrainian government says Ukraine is a country independent of Russia, it really DOES mean that.

Sometimes, one simply has to see for oneself!

Alex

God Bless His Beatitude for his invitation and truly Ecumenical gesture!!!

May His Holiness of Moscow and All-Russia accept and may the 2 Patriarchs have a good and charitable talk!

I think it is a great Christian move by Patriach Lubomyr. Ironically, it may be the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox and Ukrainian Orthodox Church/Kyivan Patriarchate who are some of his most outspoken critics.

I don't think Patriarch Alexei would accept, it would be much egg on his face considering his tirades with respect to the Greek Catholics and the Catholic Church in general.

Dear Diak,

It might be good for the Ukrainian Catholics to see the Moscow Patriarch up close and acknowledge that he also does not have horns, hoofs and a tail.

But some have to see for themselves!

Alex

This sentence was re-posted on the Indiana list, and criticized for its perceived presumptuous tone.

http://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0211d&L=orthodox&F=&S=&P=4196

The actual English text is available at:
http://www.risu.org.ua/article.php?sid=569&offsets=&l=en

The tone is, IMO, respectful and hopeful. Some excerpts:

Well, the Indiana List is pretty notorious for it's extremism.

The post there was not really extreme, just misinformed.

I saw the post on the Indiana list. The poster was misinformed and jumped to an incorrect conclusion. Clearly, Patriarch Husar was speaking pastorally to all Ukrainians of all religions and telling them that they should welcome the pastoral visit of Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow (just as they welcomed Pope John Paul II as an honored guest in their country). Ukraine includes canonical territory for both the MP and Rome.

In the official text (which djs provided the link for), Husar stated:

�We are also not indifferent to the situation that exists in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Although we have no desire to interfere in matters not our own, nevertheless the problem of mutual conflicts between Christians, particularly our fellow citizens, cannot be a matter that is completely foreign to us. We sincerely hope that the visit of the Moscow Patriarch to Ukraine will be instrumental in mending specific evangelical relations between the three branches of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

Essentially, Husar is calling upon the various Orthodox groups to work together mending the various problems facing Orthodoxy in Ukraine. He knows that a strong and united Orthodox Church in Ukraine is an asset for the Church�s witness of Christ to the Ukrainian people. He also that healing within Orthodoxy must happen before healing between East and West can happen. I am beginning to appreciate Husar�s wisdom more and more.

It will be very interesting to observe the MP's reaction and whether they are willing to meet with Patriarch Lubomyr to discuss the following issues:
The leadership I am seeing from Patriarch Lubomyr is, well, very fitting for a patriarch, and a holy one at that.

How the MP responds is very important. The ball is in their court. If they refuse, then I think that there can be little doubt the ROC is a church that cannot be taken seriously, ecumenically or institutionally, at this point. If they accept, which I predict they will, then it is possible that the churches can all begin to take steps forward towards healing. One of the first steps for the ROC, is to accept the legitimate existence of the UGCC.

With response to the Indiana group comment: whether done with misinformation, or not, the ignorance and obvious hatred of the person writing is more apparent than anything else. Can anyone who talks like this really be taken seriously? :rolleyes:

ALity

Dear Friends,

The Patriarch mentioned "three branches" of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

I understand there is a story on CWNEWS today that mentions a fourth.

Does anyone know anything about it?

Alex

Dear friends,

I do believe that at present His Holiness, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus', is recovering from a serious illness.

At any rate, before considering going to Ukraine, I'm quite sure that the protocol would require an invitation to His Holiness to be extended by the Primate of the Autonomous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev(Kyiv) and All Ukraine, first. The Autonomous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, to which most Ukrainian Orthodox owe allegiance, in case you forget, is the *only* canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Worldwide Orthodoxy does *not* recognize any other "Orthodox" Church in Ukraine except for the Autonomous Orthodox Church of Ukraine-Moscow Patriarchate. If His Holiness goes to Ukraine it would be, first of all, to visit with his Orthodox concelebrants and faithful. Other reasons, such as a possible meeting with Cardinals Husar and Macharski, would be secondary, IMHO. Just as when Pope John Paul went to Ukraine: it was to meet first with his Roman and Greek Catholic constituency, other reasons secondary.

It is nice of Cardinal L. Husar, the Major Archbishop of L'viv, to invite Patriarch Alexy, but shouldn't Cardinal Macharski of L'viv, as Rome's other major representative in Ukraine, also participate in the invitation to show a united Catholic welcome? Then, after Metropolitan Vladimir invites the Patriarch, His Holiness may respond to a combined Roman/ Ukrainian-Greek Catholic invitation to meet. But I don't think it would be proper before that.

OrthodoxEast

We're back to the canonicity nonsense AGAIN. Yet again, canonical and official are used as synonyms, which they are most certainly not. Yet again, 'World Orthodoxy' is used as the yardstick of canonicity. At times we seem to go round and round in circles and never get anywhere!!!

There are still catacomb communities and semi-catacomb communities of True Orthodox believers in Ukraine. I suppose they are non-canonical too!

S Bogom -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear OrthodoxEast,

If the message of world Orthodoxy to Orthodox Ukrainians is that the only way they will ever be "canonical" is through submission to the Russian Orthodox Church, that survival of the Soviet era, then this will never be accepted by Orthodox Ukrainians.

It also speaks volumes about "world Orthodoxy" too.

And while the "Autonomous" UOC-MP has a majority of parishes, I understand that the UOC-KP has a majority of parishioners at present.

The UOC-MP is slipping in popularity and in members - one reason it is stepping up its "canonical smear" campaign against the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous movement.

If being uncanonical is the price to pay for one's ecclesial independence of Moscow, I think you will find many Orthodox Ukies ready to pay it.

However, I understand also that bishops of the UOC-MP are now rethinking their past positions with respect to the autocephalous movement and its values and are tending toward a more conciliar approach, together with the promotion of Ukrainian spirituality with an emphasis on Ukrainian culture.

Perhaps this is the greatest sign yet that they are losing ground in their "old backyard" Ukraine.

St Theophan the New Recluse of Poltava (glorified by ROCOR)and the chaplain to the Tsar was in favour of the Ukrainianization of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

May he pray for all of us, especially for the MP.

Alex

I really can't say much because I haven't as yet had the chance to travel to Ukraine, but I've heard and read a bit about changes that seem positive both for the Ukrainian Orthodox and Greek Catholics as well. It seems that the people want one "Ukrainian" Church that would be led by its own Patriarch and not by a Patriarch from a different country and culture that probably has good intentions as well, but the Ukrainians want a Patriarch that understands and respects its people, culture, history, spirituality and speaks the proper Ukrainian language as well, that's what the Ukies fought for and suffered and continue fighting and suffering for and this will never end until the day of a united Ukrainian church with its own Patriarch takes his seat in Kyiv.
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

Yes, I apologise.

I did not mean to formally impugn the good intentions of the MP toward the Ukrainian Church and people!

How uncharitable and unecumenical of me!

Alex

Alex,

This would be the "Sobornopravna" Church which has recently 'returned' to Ukraine. There should still be an article on RISU about this.

Dear OrthodoxEast,

There was talk quite a while back concerning a visit to Ukraine by Patriarch Alexy II, so I would assume all the official letters have been exchanged between the ROC and UOC-MP.

As for Patriarch Lubomyr's press release, it wasn't an 'invitation' but a statement of welcome and peace on behalf of the UGCC (as opposed to the calls from the ROC/UOC-MP to protest the Pope's visit to Ukraine).

FYI the Roman primate of Ukraine is Marian Cardinal Jaworski. He is free to welcome Patriarch Alexy II if he so chooses. Or he can ignore the visit - it's up to him. Keeping in mind the current state of relations between Moscow and Rome I assume he's seeking guidance from the Vatican on this issue. As Cardinal Jaworski and Patriarch Lubomyr head separate Churches (though still in communion with each other) they are in no way required to "sing from the same hymn sheet" on every issue.

I'm curious. When an Orthodx patriarch visits the US, do all primates of all the Orthodox Churches in the US issue a joint letter of welcome and show a "united Orthodox" front, or do they each 'do their own thing'?

Andrij

The Church you mention does NOT name Herself
"Autonomous". The official website of the UOC
describes her as "a self-governing part of the Patriarchate of Moscow".

Quote

Cardinal Macharski of L'viv, as Rome's other major representative in Ukraine

1. Cardinal F. MACHARSKI is Latin Archbishop Metropolitan of Cracow, Poland (current Pope's
successor on his previous see).
2. The current Latin Archbishop Metropolitan of L'viv, Ukraine is Cardinal M. JAWORSKI.
3. No one can be "Cardinal of L'viv". All the Cardinals are "Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church"
("Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales"). IMHO no Eastern Catholic hierarch should ever accept the cardinalate, especially if he's a head of a "sui iuris" Church.

Just a few corrections...

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Dear Subdeacon,

I always like it when you correct OTHER people!

Not that I am insecure, you know . . .

How is the weather in Polska?

Alex

1. Of course official name of the UOC does not contain the word "Autonomous", but at least
formally UOC is less dependent on Moscow than UGCC on Rome. For instance, UOC has right to choose and consecrate bishops, create/liquidate eparchies without Moscow's intervention. The UGCC must have Rome's assent or "consulation" for such acts.
2. I'd be VERY cautious with the statistics of faithful in Ukraine.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

I do know indeed.

Very fine, in spite of the calendar reality (END OF NOVEMBER!). We had snow on October (13th, just before my surgery), now we have a nice, warm Autumn...

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

PS. As you understand Polish, I invite you to read
the Polish Orthodox unofficial website (www.cerkiew.pl [cerkiew.pl]) with a discussion board.
PS.

Subdeacon Peter:

You surmised:

In that case, you allow only us, the Romans, to "govern" and "rule over" the Universal Church?

Now, the Ukies here, especially Alex, should temper their on-going campaign for Cardinal-Patriarch Husar to be the front-running papabili.

AmdG

Just the opposite: IMO the College of Cardinals
should have nothing to do with "governing" the
UNIVERSAL Church.

In fact, His Beatitude hardly is or can become a real papabile. From the other side, you should
remember that EVERY CATHOLIC can be elected Pope.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Great point, Piotr. We should remember that there were Greek and Syrian popes that were certainly not of the Roman liturgical tradition. They were elected by synodal vote in the early Church.

And you are right about the office of Cardinal. It should be reserved as an honorary title only. I don't even think they should be voting on the Pope at all, but the entire worldwide synod of bishops.

I like Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk's proposal at Vatican II, which at the time was seen as rather radical, that the entire Catholic Church return to the more ancient way of election, a standing synod of all of the bishops (regardless of status as Cardinal), one bishop, one vote for the primus inter pares, the Pope.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your replies and for the URL! I will definitely visit it, but my conversational Polish is weak, so I'll remain a lurker!

Yes, I'm confused by the statistics of Orthodox faithful I come across - Patriarch Filaret recently said that sociological studies show that there are twice as many faithful of the KP than of the UOC-MP. Do you think he's telling the truth?

Alex

Dear Diak and Peter,

Yes, the history of the Cardinals has been checkered to say the least!

There is the story of a Renaissance Pope riding into Rome when he meets a group of hunters on horseback who tell him that they are all . . .Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church!

He doesn't believe them, but when he gets back to the "office" he finds out that, yes indeed, they were Cardinals.

I doubt very much if the current situation in Rome would change to allow bishops to vote on their choice for Pope. The notion that any Catholic can become Pope is nice - like the farmer pulled away from his plough way back when to become Pope and set Rome aright. But today that really wouldn't happen.

I'd be happy with another Pope who isn't Italian!

However, my own view on this is that Peter is correct and betrays a truly and deeply Eastern theological viewpoint when he says that no Eastern bishop should be a Cardinal.

St Andrew Sheptytsky himself declined the offer in his lifetime.

Cardinals are entirely a Latin Church affair. In fact, choosing the Patriarch of the West is entirely a Latin Church affair - today.

The choice of Greeks and Syrians (and one Dalmatian although I understand he had no spots ) for Pope in the past occurred when there was little liturgical distinctiveness in the Church (Clementine Liturgy etc.) and doubtless the incoming "foreigners" adopted the Roman Liturgy.

This is shown in the assignment of St Theodore of Tarsus to Canterbury as its Metropolitan. A Greek, the then Pope had him adopt the Latin Rite and then ordered St Adrian of Canterbury, a Latin clergic, to his side to basically "watch over" him and ensure that the Latin Rite was observed in the various developing English usages.

The fact is that, as Peter the Subdeacon said, it should not matter one iota to us who is the Pope of Rome. The fact that it does seems to indicate a Latinized view on our part that somehow Rome is still the administrator for our Church - and that view should have long gone the way of the dinosaurs.

The Pope of Rome's election is the business of the Particular Latin Church that does not affect us, and should not. We should be the administrators of our own business without reference to Rome and we should become this more and more.

We only recognize the Pope of Rome in just ONE of his nine titles, that of Universal Pontiff. He has no further influence with us, liturgically or administratively.

And we need not have a centre in Rome or a Cathedral or anything. We do, however, and that's O.K. .

Alex

Alex, if you were here I'd give you a triple kiss... That was so eloquently stated. We shouldn't even be considering Patriarch Lubomyr for anything other than Patriarch, as that is the head of our church and the person entrusted with the highest level of shepherding, adminstration and decision making.

As the majority of the universal Church is by population the Roman church, by several orders of magnitude, she should be governed by a Roman pontiff. Someone of her rite, liturgical and spiritual heritage should be her Patriarch.

In the true sense of the primus inter pares, Rome should only be involved with our affairs in critical matters of faith and morals, when our own hierarchy itself has elevated the issue for Rome to make the call, and we should, being in communion with her, accept that call.

Although we like to point the finger at Rome for inducing latinizations, sometimes, like with the issue of the Ordo Celebrationis, Rome has had to "spoon feed" us at critical times for our own good.

I think with the development of our church, especially since V II, and the restoration of our patriarchate, we are ready to "leave the nest" so to speak. I don't know what that has to do with the topic, but we always seem to get our heads wrapped around that issue.

I think if Alexei does visit Patriarch Lubomyr, it will likely be a private affair, probably by Alexei's wishes. I am still somewhat skeptical that they will meet, considering Metropolitan Vladimir's admonitions, which came down from Alexei, to the UOC/MP faithful that they absent themselves from any of the Papal visit events in Kyiv of 2001.

But didn't it matter to Eastern Church Fathers, such as St. John Chrysostom, who was the Pope, since he is the visible head of the Catholic Church? Shouldn't it matter to every faithful Catholic, Eastern or Western, who the head of their Church is?

The Pope isn't just head of the Roman Catholic Church, he's the head of the entire Catholic Church.

ChristTeen287

CristTeen,
I guess that's why he said it doesn't matter.
Lauro

Dear Diak,

As always, you take a good thing (my post ) and make it even better!

Alex

Dear ChristTeen,

Actually, the Eastern Churches believe it is Christ Who is the Head of the Church - but I know you know that.

The Pope of Rome is the first among equals in the entire Church. This means he has the first place at an Ecumenical Council and if your bishop should get mad at you (for one of your posts here, for example ) and wants to excommunicate you, you have the right to appeal to Rome.

Rome can be the referee when the Particular Church asks it to be.

But with administrative and all other matters - it is the Particular Church with its Patriarch or whoever that is in charge of what goes on.

As Diak so eloquently said (triple kiss right back at you, Big Guy!), the Pope is the head of the Particular Latin Church, first and foremost.

He is a referee for the other Churches in cases of necessity.

To say he is the "head of the entire Catholic Church" implies that he is the chief administrator - and he ain't that for other Particular Churches.

Christ is the Head of the Church. The bishops, even Popes and Patriarchs, are His servants.

Alex

Alex,
What you have just posted is not understood amongst the majority of Eastern Catholics. Many religious orders as well don't recognise this as you know. What I'

Sorry I pressed the wrong key. Let me finish what I wanted to say. What I've been doing down here is trying to convince certain people of the facts that have been occuring in Europe (Ukraine) because people for some reason don't like to read. This Forum has also given me a lot to think about and reflect because people here are giving their points of view on subjects that are of interest to everyone who are of the Byzantine tradition, be they Orthox and or Catholics. Another point that is very interesting is that here we have people from all over the world even from Canada and I've learned much here. I on the other hand feel very alone down here and I'm fighting a battle that almost seems impossible, the odds against me are great, but I'm not giving up. I hope Husar comes to Brazil one day and I'm sure that he will. I hope I get a chance to speak with him personnally at least for 10 minutes.
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

What you say is something I've been tryign to convey to the Administrator and others here for some time .

These excellent people believe I'm an Old Style Greek Catholic (and what's wrong with that?).

But I suspect they mean I have "Uniate" tendencies.

And I think I've "come a long way, baby."

Pray for the day the Studites come to Brazil.

But hopefully not during Carnival time.

That just might turn them off . . . religious life . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

a Unitae only means we are united with Rome.

There are over 1 billion Roman Catholics united with Rome as well.

When meeting a particularly diffucult Roman Catholic I like to remind them they are more Unitae than me and my Church .

Steven

Dear Steven,

Certainly you are right!

But sometimes "Uniate" in certain contexts means someone of the East who is bending over backwards too far for Rome, as in someone with a "Uniate" mentality, subservient to Rome etc.

When I met the Pope, he asked me to hand him some papers that were on a table in front of him that he couldn't reach from his sitting position.

I obeyed . . .

Does that mean I was subservient to him?

Alex

Dear Larou,

my Church group has been having meetings over this.

The Pope and only the Pope is the mediator in our Church affairs. Only when there is some crisis does the Pontiff step in.

But we both know that their are second columns in our Churches that are more Papal than the Pope himself.

My advice would be to organize a group of people who care about the UGGC heirtage and traditions, and start immediately lobbying your Church to return to her proper traditions.

My group has done this and we have made a lot of progress. Talk to your Priest. You will often find a sympathetic ear if you present your case properly.

Just make sure everyone researches properly, and cite proper traditions and laws.

Steven

Dear Alex,

I find nothing wrong with handing the Pontiff papers.

If you take a survey of people he is considered very saintly.

If I met him I would certainly handed him his papers I admire you for having the opportunity to do this.

John Paul II is one of the greatest Popes in history. His predecessor will have a very difficult time filling his shoes.

Steven

Dear Steven,

Excellent to hear, Big Guy!

I think the way must be set forth by our Patriarch and his Patriarchal Synod.

As my experience with our Basilian pastor shows, I think even the most papal people will follow his lead as they see Rome, if not approving our Patriarchy, at least starting to research and examine the possibility!

When Rome was examining the possibility of canonizing the Orthodox St Job of Pochaiv as a Catholic saint, the Basilians who were then at Pochaiv took this as a "go ahead." I have a Catholic medal with the Pochaiv icon on one side and St Job on the other.

Alex

Dear Alex,

sorry about the typos Big Guy!. I am going to celebrate Thanksgiving at 6pm.

My adivce to all people would be to organize and educate yourselves.

I used to sit home and complain until I saw one to many Latin traditions in my own Church.

I talked to my friends and we decided to research our true laws and traditions. Guess what? I did not see to many in my Church.

Good luck to everyone. You can change it.

Steven

Dear Alex,

the problem we have in Philadelphia is the opposite.

Metropolitan Stefan (a Canadian-American), is very traditional and has been encouraging Churches to return to a more "Peter Mohyla outlook".

Some of our own people are to comfortable
with the answers of the past. These would be Sacred Hearts, Rosaries, and Pyorhi lines.

I believe these have there place, but our Church and Liturgy should not be affected by them.

Steven

Dear Steven,

How interesting - and typical of our people!

The "Peter Mohyla" outlook. Now that really is an interesting phrase!

I take it to mean, as you are using it, that this refers to Easternization in our Church?

As you know, Mohyla was regarded more as a Westernizer in his time, the master-mind behind the Kyivan Baroque period.

He even included a reference to purgatory in his original creed - that was later expunged by the Eastern Patriarchs.

There is also a reference to the Rosary in his Creed when he explains the Eastern "Hail Mary" and talks about the custom to say it "many times each day."

His ultimate goal, as Diak said, was to try and stem the tide of Orthodox conversions to RCism in his day.

His belief in sending Orthodox students to study in Paris et alia resulted in them bringing home with them the devotion to the Immaculate Conception and other practices - not that there's anything wrong with them - as you say, when done in private.

I surmise that the figure of St Peter Mohyla today represents a return "ad fontes" to Eastern spirituality for our Church.

That is fine. It is just that his name would not have necessarily evoked that image in his time.

But how fascinating!

Alex

Dear Alex,

You are right. That is what was implied Big Guy.

An Orthodox Catholic center.

The true middle of balancing our faith with the outside world both Orthodox and Latin.

Yes, I did know that the Eastern Churches (as well as the Western Church) view Christ as the Head of the Church. But I also understood it that the Eastern Churches understood that the Pope is head of the Church Militant/Church Visible. Christ as Head and Pope as head are not mutually exclusive, I don't believe. I have never heard a Latin Catholic deny that Christ is Head of the Church, but I have never heard a (faithful) Latin Catholic deny that the Pope is Head of the Catholic Church.

Yes, indeed. That is perhaps why my favorite papal title is "Servant of the servants of God."

ChristTeen287

I stand corrected (I rely too much on memory): the Latin Archbishop of L'viv and Primate of Ukraine is Cardinal Marian Jaworski and *not* Cardinal Macharski!

These underground or "Catacomb" Orthodox Christian believers you mention are to the Orthodox like the SSPX is to the Catholics, i.e., for the most part, schismatics, but *not* necessarily heretics by any means.

Whether the title "Autonomous" is included in the official title of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine-Moscow Patriarchate-is irrelevant, for that is what she is, an autonomous Orthodox Church like the Orthodox Church of Japan-Moscow Patriarchate, or the Orthodox Church of Finland-Ecumenical Patriarchate.