If you are going to blast me for not providing supporting documentation, then when you do, please include all that is relevant to the discussion.
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?
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'.