And your reply to me "I cannot even comment on such a ridiculous statement." was.............sweet talk?
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Why would he list Peter again?
I fail to see Peter listed as the first Bishop of Rome.
Let's do a little simple arithmetic:
"The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in his Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus and after him, in third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric."
1. Iranaeus says the church was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul. 2. They appointed Linus - #1.
3. Linus succeded by Anacletus - #2.
4. Anacletus succeeded by Clement - #3.
By my count Iranaeus lists 3 "Bishops of Rome" and Peter is nowhere among them. That is, unless you include Peter as the first because he, with Paul, appointed Linus per your quote, "... the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;"
By this logic your first Pope was 'Peter and Paul'.
You won’t accept the history of the Church, so why even bother?
I fail to see the comparison in the two statements. I did not “blast” you for blasting me, rather I said if you are going to go after me for something, do not then omit other relevant material.
As for the question at hand. St. Iraneus, is used as the basis in every subsequent chronology of popes as having listed Peter as the first bishop of Rome.
You are moving the bar, as so often happens.
Originally you claimed that there was no mention of Peter in the excerpt, but as I showed, in the very paragraph previous to your quote, there is Peter.
Paul has never been referred to as the Bishop of Rome, though we that he was there with Peter and that he was martyred there.
What does that tell you?
You can’t say the Church is making this stuff up, as I have pointed out to you that this was common and accepted belief as early as the second century.