This is ridiculous. It is here implying that Ignatius did a bad job as a Patriarch. He did an excellent job, and he had the integrity to do something which Photius didnt have the courage to do; he stood up for good morals and condemned the behavior of Bardas.Many of the bishops before him had been equally exposed to the caprice of the court. Among his predecessors, and even in the see of Rome, Ignatius might have found examples of men who preferred to renounce a dignity they could no longer exercise with profit to the Church, rather than to excite by useless opposition disturbances which always injure it. He did not see fit to imitate these examples, and refused to renounce his dignity in spite of the entreaties of several bishops.
That is not what he is implying at all. All that is stated is that Ignatius was not willing to humbly relinquish his post for the greater good of the church as other patriarchs had done before him. His insistance on hanging on to the position after the empereor had deposed him only caused factions to grow in the church, turning brother against brother. It doesn’t matter if he was personally justified in taking that stand or not since by doing so he fostered division in the church.This is ridiculous. It is here implying that Ignatius did a bad job as a Patriarch. He did an excellent job, and he had the integrity to do something which Photius didnt have the courage to do; he stood up for good morals and condemned the behavior of Bardas.