Speaking of pure idiocy --- the above sort of commentary fits THAT bill, for you keep aiming that at people here (and their beliefs) who are most certainly not the sort which Ireneus (whom you seem to rely upon) was writing against.
From http://orthodoxwiki.org/Against_Heresies
Do you see the above? Only fragments of the Greek text remain. The Latin translation comes from the better part of 200 years later (which is not exactly a "short time" later).
He was not a well documented or much repeated writer either (or else there would be far many more Greek text copies been made) not in comparison to many others -- until almost a couple of centuries later -- right about when a bishop of Rome began attempt to assert 'authority' of that bishopric alone -- over all other bishops.
Cherry-picking select quotes from that writer simply won't do. Things need be examined more in entirety.
From http://orthodoxwiki.org/Irenaeus_of_Lyons The Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the gospel, and by them we also have learned the truth, that is, the teaching of the Son of God—as the Lord said to them, 'He who hears you hears Me, and he who despises you despises Me, and Him Who sent Me' [Lk.10:16]. For we learned the plan of our salvation from no other than from those through whom the gospel came to us. The first preached it abroad, and then later by the will of God handed it down to us in Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. For it is not right to say that they preached before they had come to perfect knowledge, as some dare to say, boasting that they are the correctors of the apostles. For after our Lord had risen from the dead, and they were clothed with the power from on high when the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were filled with all things and had perfect knowledge. They went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the good things that come to us from God, and proclaiming peace from heaven to all men, all and each of them equally being in possession of the gospel of God. -- Against the Heresies, III
I enlarged the particular portions to make them more difficult to ignore. And those portions -- if we are to be relying upon Irenaeus, show much of your own past discourse on this thread to have been very much in error.
Irenaeus himself does not endorse anything near to the concept of singular papacy, and that being inheritable through only Peter, and that going only to the Church of Rome, even though he is often enough trotted out as if he did support that particular aspect.
Perhaps that goes right over the heads of Roman Catholics?
It certainly appear to go over the heads of many, anyway.
Singular papacy was an entirely foreign concept among the Church, yet that starkly rank heresy seems the very thing which you are straining to find support for, insulting each and every soul who raises opposition to that particular twisted version of "Church".
There is still yet much missing of your own coverage of Ireneus.
Allow a genuine scholar (Philip Schaff) to show you; from
[a.d. 120–202.] This history introduces us to the Church in her Western outposts. We reach the banks of the Rhone, where for nearly a century Christian missions have flourished. Between Marseilles and Smyrna there seems to have been a brisk trade, and Polycarp had sent Pothinus into Celtic Gaul at an early date as its evangelist. He had fixed his see at Lyons, when Irenæus joined him as a presbyter, having been his fellow-pupil under Polycarp. There, under the “good Aurelius,” as he is miscalled (a.d. 177), arose the terrible persecution which made “the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne” so memorable. It was during this persecution that Irenæus was sent to Rome with letters of remonstrance against the rising pestilence of heresy; and he was probably the author of the account of the sufferings of the martyrs which is appended to their testimony.[2649] But he had the mortification of finding the Montanist heresy patronized by Eleutherus the Bishop of Rome; and there he met an old friend from the school of Polycarp, who had embraced the Valentinian heresy. We cannot doubt that to this visit we owe the lifelong struggle of Irenæus against the heresies that now came in, like locusts, to devour the harvests of the Gospel. But let it be noted here, that, so far from being “the mother and mistress” of even the Western Churches, Rome herself is a mission of the Greeks; [2650] Southern Gaul is evangelized from Asia Minor, and Lyons checks the heretical tendencies of the Bishop at Rome. Ante-Nicene Christianity, and indeed the Church herself, appears in Greek costume which lasts through the synodical period; and Latin Christianity, when it begins to appear, is African, and not Roman. It is strange that those who have recorded this great historical fact have so little perceived its bearings upon Roman pretensions in the Middle Ages and modern times.[2649] Eusebius, book v. to the twenty-seventh chapter, should be read as an introduction to this author.
[2650] Milman, Hist. Latin Christianity, b. i. pp. 27, 28, and the notes.
Dis you notice that the bishopric of Rome was not beyond falling prey to "heresy" itself, even if but a temporary condition which Irenaeus himself had to combat? There is more too, for there were those in the early Church whom were forced to oppose "pope" Victor also, when that man (the first Roman bishop to do so) attempted to assert himself as having singularly authority over all other bishops. He was corrected in no uncertain terms-- for that. Most of the RCC seem to either not know of these things -- or else not understand them -- if you really want to talk about things going over people's heads.
But I've got to hand it to the apologists for Rome. They are a dedicated group. It's too bad that most everything they touch is tainted by some form of error, or outright falsehood.
Enough with the gratuitous insults.
If not for Schaff (a Protestant) those of Rome would not have had much in the way of English translation for what writings are attributed to Irenaeus --- other than small portions (such as you have quoted) which were "cherry-picked" by those of the Oxford Movement in the 19th century.
It was such slanted cherry-picking of quotes which Schaff and other Protestants went to great effort to correct --- by providing English language access to the fuller record, and hence the fuller truth of the matters...which fuller history often goes against the way those "of Rome" claim things to be -- showing 'Rome' to have long been misrepresenting itself.
It's not that it goes over everyone's head. The problem is the evidence from the earliest beginnings of the Church go 180 degrees opposite direction such concepts as there having been some sort of widely accepted "papacy" at Rome, including from even Irenaeus.
When Irenaeus wrote of "all must agree" with the Church of Rome, he was writing against Gnostic corruptions of Christianity, not of those whom in later centuries would be found opposing later corruptions of the Gospel introduced by the Church of Rome.
There is a small problem too -- with what comes down to us in this day attributed to Irenaeus.
In your previous citation from 3.2.2 he wrote of the Church at Rome being founded by both Peter and Paul...which most likely is not exactly true, as in directly, by their own hands, and by their own presence there been established...for it cannot be, other than them having done so rather remotely -- as in there were those of among the early Church having traveled to Rome, bringing the Gospel to the synagogues which were there in Rome, some years before Peter or Paul went to Rome.
Paul himself, according to what can be pieced together from Scripture and other evidences, having been there first, but not staying, then returning years later, with the last resulting in himself living out the rest of his days there.
Although both of those Apostles were most likely there later in their lives (and each martyred there at Rome) there are traces of the Gospel having been introduced to Rome before either of them arrived there personally in the flesh as it were, but the general understanding which Eusebius later writes about concerning each of them dying for their faith, at Rome, is likely how the concept of the Church at Rome having been founded by both of them made it's way into later description.
Surely they are ALLOWED to cherrypick their OWN writings; eh?