I prefer Irenaeus in his own words, not what curbside bloggers and internet cut-and-paste technicians think. Can’t have time to be drawn into this sophomoric stuff of Bible-folks who have never bothered to read Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict who by the way are not bloggers but whose works are studied in yes, major universities. Oh, I know their scholarship don’t matter. We are all in a fog of chaos stranded on interstate highways. (sarc.)
Then all you have are a few Greek language fragments.
Can you show that which is oft cited from Irenaeus (such as you did), is in those fragments?
If not, then one cannot be assured that there had not been some tampering, later on -- for it has been well enough established that many such writings have suffered such adjustments.
I just went over an obscure incidence of that being established to have occurred, on the thread entitled Pagan Saints for an example of a quite brief insertion which held within itself significant theological implication, which helped set the stage for yet further development. It can be by way of the slightest changes that either departure from, or addition to that which was more originally "handed down from the Apostles" change did occur, and can be traceable.
See if you can understand what it was I was pointing out, on that other thread, and then you may be better able to appreciate what I mean when I use the word "development" as that is applied to theology, and be better able to understand my own intended meanings when I use the term.
As for the quote from Irenaeus, if we were to accept those as authentic (in wording) there is far too much being read into them in order to find what you persist in calling 'Petrine authority', which authority (for the Gospel of Christ) even in that writing, is shared with Paul.
Further, we just went through this very thing (over this very quote allegedly from Irenaeus) just about a week ago, on another thread (#260), and there too in another comment of my own (#263) I had produced solid rebuttal as for a few claims which you had brought in regards to Supremacy for the bishopric of Rome, yet received no reply from yourself for either effort. It seems as if you 'ran away'.
But now I'm supposed to go over it all over again?
That is much what I meant when I previously remarked in regards to the tedious nature this particular discussion of "Petrine authority" has been with yourself, for you simply refuse to engage in the substance of arguments.
There truly is another way to look at things, where history, Scripture, and theology all brought together at once produce decidedly different image (in comparison to Romish notions of "Petrine authority" being always in Rome, and thus a thing which is reliant upon being partially geographical in nature -- and entirely inheritable too ---- but only for whoever ascends to that one particular office).
I see it plain as day, and see it more clearly each time that I dig yet further into early patristics.
A week ago now, I showed you there, in further citation which is attributed to Irenaeus, himself not supporting the concept of singular papacy (as that later evolved from within Rome, alone, to becoming) but instead speaking quite plainly that the authority which the church was given was shared equally and generally among the Apostles.
If you --- as you said --- prefer Irenaeus in his own words, then investigate those more fully, rather than a cherry-pick here, and a cherry pick there. The fuller context serves to rebut use of 3.2.2 in the way which RC apologist after apologist do tend to woodenly repeat that small portion, while themselves also reading into it that which is not truly there.
And yet you dare speak to ME of "internet cut-and-paste technicians", when likely as not borrowing from amateur RC apologists, yourself?
FOr the record, one of the witnesses which Trialblogue brought to bear was J.N.D. Kelly, an historian who Ratzinger himself quotes from.
You ended your note with crude polemic and virtually empty name dropping. Spare me. I can read, and I do.
But if polemic is what you desire, then here's a bit of that, but which is not as low level "sophomoric" as is typically your own, but instead goes further into things much neglected --- like some of those pesky facts of history, which no matter how many times those have been polished and polished (by RC apologists), the results remind me of the ring-around-the-collar old soap commercials, for they try "scrubbing them out and scrubbing them out" but no matter what, once the garment is examined, the result is visible --- "those dirty rings" are still there.