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 pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
What do you bet that the words "at Rome" are not in Irenaeus' original autograph but were added by later dishonest Latin translators.
Irenaeus would have known from Paul's Epistle to the Romans that the church in Rome was alive and well before Paul or any apostle had been there. Neither Peter nor Paul founded that church. If Irenaeus was confused on that point, then his credibility in the rest of this paragraph is called into question, that is, if he actually wrote that paragraph at all.