Not hardly.
The Moscow Partiarch is recognized by all of the Orthodox Patriarchs as being a legitimate Patriarch. Being a recognized autocephalous church gives them that distinction.
There's a lot of things recognized as being legitimate when they aren't.
I could list some egregious examples, but in the interest of Christian Charity, I won't.
Fact of the matter is that he isn't legitimate, since his see wasn't raised to patriarchal status by an ecumenical council; therefore, he is a usurper.
And considering the see is a see of a usurper, seeing an outrageous statement such as the one made by the current occupant of that see is not surprising. And that was the point of my earlier post.
If that is true, why is the Moscow Patriarch recognized as a Patriarch of the Orthodox Christian Church? Even Constantinople extends him that recognition (his name is read at their Liturgies).
Either you are mistaken or every Orthodox Christian Patriarch is.
As well as the Bishop of Rome, by the way.