Yes. And when Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles, people generally understood that baptism was not the same thing as receiving the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. Thus they knew the difference between Baptism and Confirmation and knew that while any believer could baptize someone, only the bishop could lay hands on people and give the gift of the Holy Spirit. So right there, both a differentation in hierarchy and in sacraments.

The early Church knew that martyrs were holy and their relics could (and did) cure the sick, cast out demons etc. they venerated the relics but did not worship them and knew they didn't worship them because they understood that worship always involves sacrifice and the only sacrifice they knew was the 'breaking of the bread' that they celebrated in secret on the Lords day (first day of the week, Sunday). By the 100's they had developed a liturgy through which they instructed people in the faith, read the Old testament and shared the gospel message and exchanged the various letters of the various apostles.

Again, where ever we look, it has the hall marks of proto-Catholicism, proto-orthodoxy (one and the same until the 800s with the final break in the 10th century.)

Random? Really? I guess nothing has context if you are constantly looking the opposite direction.



Here' s hint on your quote. Polycarp wasn't talking necessarily about written scripture when he references 'the word delivered to us from the beginning.' He references Paul's having taught orally and by letter earlier in this document.
 

I'm still baffled as to the significance of debating Polycarp's view of Petrine Primacy.

Because it side-steps the point of how the canon was assembled and on whose authority or initiative just those books were included rather than others of the ancient world like the Gospel of Peter or Thomas or extra letters claiming to be from St. Paul.

It also side steps the issue of historical evidence that the first 3-4 generations had liturgy, hierarchy, sacraments.....