I'm sorry, Harley, that's simply flat out wrong. Read *carefully* the very first quote that Campion posted above. You can also read Irenaeus's Against Heresies online.
Read especially Book 3 Chapter 2: The Heretics Follow Neither Scripture Nor Tradition
Book 3 Chapter 3: A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up
And Book 3 Chapter 4: The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
There is *no* possible way you can read Irenaeus in any other way but that he was a strong, strong partisan of the authority of the Church through Apostolic Succession, and particularly of the Bishop of Rome.
Of course Irenaeus would have held this view and I don't disagree with Irenaeus' writings. There was only ONE Christian church at that time and it was under attacked by all sorts of heretical doctrine. Irenaeus focus was on keeping the Church pure and his writings reflect this view.
Shoot ahead 900 years later when the Orthodox split. Which traditions are you following? The Orthodox says that the Church never had a strong Pope. The Roman Catholics say they did. This was such an area of contention it has kept both groups apart for another 1,000 years. Well, if you're following traditions of the Church doesn't this seem like a silly argument? One would have thought the matter resolved. Whose tradition is it anyway?