I apologize for taking a while to get back to you, but I wanted my answer to be well-written and concise.

Regarding the relics, statues, and icons, it is expressly forbidden to pray to any statue, relic or icon; statues and icons are made for the express purpose to show reverence and veneration to holy men and women who serve as examples of lives to live by (1 Timothy 5:17, Sirach 7:33, 38, Hebrews 13:17). The Baltimore Catechism, question 223, states “We do not pray to the crucifix or to the images and relics of saints, but to the persons they represent. When making an icon of Jesus Himself, we are representing the humanity of Christ (as defined in the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787). God the Father is not anthropomorphic, thus we could not possibly depict Him using our limited understanding of the Divine. It is also notable that God Himself commands that Cherubim statues are to be built up in gold (Exodus 25:18); therefore, we can determine that  Exodus 20:4 was distinctly about the worshipping of idols and statues of pagan gods, which is why God reprimanded the golden bull, and not the golden cherubim. 

I believe a common misconception with non-Catholics is the lack of distinction between types of honor we give to Saints, the Blessed Mother, and God. There are three main types in Catholic doctrine: dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. Dulia is the due service owed to a human, and is distinct from latria. Dulia is, as St. Thomas Aquinas puts it, a species of observance, as we observe all those who have excelled in dignity and virtue. Hyperdulia a form of dulia, but given only to the Blessed Virgin, as she is the Mother of God, and is owed a heightened amount of reverence for her role in the salvation of humanity. Latria, on the other hand, is above all the other forms of honor, as it is worship, which we give to God alone. This distinction goes back to at least St. Augustine’s time, for he mentions it in his “City of God,” Book 10, chapter 2, from the year 426. 

I know you also will inevitably ask why we pray to Saints and the Blessed Mother, bringing up Leviticus 19:31 and 20:27 as well as 1 Timothy 2:5-6, when we can pray directly to God. Firstly, we are not superstitious, as it is vehemently condemned by the Church (Baltimore Catechism, Question 212). Well, as we know from the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus, the Saints are alive in Heaven (Luke 16:19-31), and we also know that the Saints live in Jesus Christ, who is the absolute essence of life (John 11:25; John 14:6). Revelation also shows the Saints in Heaven worshipped God in 4:10, 5:8, and 6:9-11. We also agree that Jesus Christ is the only mediator to the Father; when we say pray, it is not simultaneous with worship, as in, we do not pray to the Saints and the Blessed Mother as we pray to God, but it is like asking a brother on Earth to pray for you, but this brother is in Heaven. We also know that we are all members of the interconnected Body of Christ, and since we are all members, either alive on Heaven or Earth, we can communicate with each other, and those living spirits are not contrary with the Will of God. We also know that in Revelation 8:3-4, that the Saints can still pray; who are they praying for? I could appeal to 2 Maccabees, but I know you do not consider that canonical, and I will get to that. 

Regarding Mary being the Queen of Heaven, it is said that because in Jewish tradition, the Mother of a King was Queen since it was common that the kings had far more than one wife (1 Kings 11:3). Therefore, since Jesus is King of Heaven, which I hope you would agree with (Matthew 21:5, Hebrews 1:8), Mary would be the Queen of Heaven. We can see this in Jeremiah 13:18, where it says “Bathsheba, the wife of David, mother of Solomon, was the “Queen mother” (Jeremiah 13:18) or “Gebirah”, which literally means “queen-mother.” The queen mothers were very respected and loved by the King; for example, in 1 Kings 2:20, Bathsheba sits on a throne next to King Solomon, and Solomon bows to her and tells her to make any request which she needs. We also look to Revelation 12:1-6, the description of the red dragon and the woman, where the woman is Mary; Mary is clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet; who else but a Queen? It is interesting to note, that in the entire Gospel of John, there is not a single reference to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, only “woman”, similarly to how St. John refers to Mary in his vision.

In Jeremiah, the references to the goddess Astarte as “Queen of heaven” is condemned, as she does not exist, and is not real. It was also condemned to offer sacrifice to her. In no way does this relate to the Virgin Mary, who does exist, and was chosen to be the Mother of God by God.

Regarding the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, it is doctrine that the Sts. James, Jude, and Simon, are cousins of Jesus. There is a good paper on this written by St. Jerome in the 4th century called “On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary,” which articulates the point far better than I could, so I would suggest reading that. I can talk about the term “brethren” which is often used, however; the Greek which is used is “adelphos,” which has multiple variations, is not always “blood brothers,” as the same Greek is used in Acts when Ananias refers to Paul as “adelphos.” Also, in Matthew 27:56, it states that James, Joseph (Joses), was the Mother of Mary, wife of Alphaeus (Acts 1:13), which was the sister of the Virgin Mary (John 19:25); therefore, they would be the Lord’s cousins. Again, I recommend reading the mentioned paper, it is not too long and highly informative.

I will also talk about Matthew 1:24-25. Firstly, it says firstborn in reference to Exodus 13:1-2, when God says to consecrate all the firstborns to Him, which is important for Matthew to include, since his Gospel was written for a Jewish audience. It also is reading more into the text to determine that since it says “firstborn,” there must be a “secondborn.” Regarding the “knowing” part, it is largely grammatical. In 1 Corinthians 15:25 (which uses the same Greek as Matthew 1:24-25 for “till,” being “heos hou”), it is said ”For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet” (KJV). Using your logic you prescribed to Matthew 1:24-25, this means that Christ will only reign until His enemies are under His feet. We know that the Son will reign forever, however, as it is said in Luke 1:33. In short, the “till” part is an idiomatic expression.

Regarding why Jesus rebuked those who were praising the Blessed Mother, it is not exactly knocking down the Virgin Mary (as it would be rather disrespectful to do that to His mother, Matthew 15:3-6), but He is driving home the point that those who believe in the Gospel are Blessed. It is also not true that this was the only time somebody praised Mary, as in Luke 1:42, Elizabeth, who was full of the Holy Spirit, calls Mary “blessed among women” and the fruit of her womb “blessed.” 

The first part of the Hail Mary is taken directly from scripture. It is: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus” (Luke 1:28, Luke 1:42). The second part “Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death,” is so that by her intercession, she can pray for us so that we may be reconciled before God - it is honoring the Mother of God, while also asking for the mercy of her Son, Jesus. As we saw from Solomon’s reverence towards his mother, I can only imagine how Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, honors His. Also, while you pray the rosary, you are supposed to meditate on the life of Jesus while praying the rosary (called the sorrowful, glorious, luminous mysteries, which are each about the life of Jesus Christ). Fun fact which is interesting, the Hail Mary was actually designed by Irish monks to teach people scripture at the time when reading was uncommon.

Also, I agree that the Bible should not be changed at all - which is why Martin Luther was wrong when he reclassified books in the Bible, which were previously decreed to be in the canon of the Bible during the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the 4th-5th centuries, as “apocryphal,” and especially when the British and Foreign Bible Society completely removed them to save on printing costs in the 19th century. The deuterocanon, or the apocrypha as you call it, was present in every Bible until then.

In short, she was saved completely by the grace of God; Catholics do not believe that Mary saved herself - it was through the Grace of God that she was made a perfect vessel to bear God incarnate.

I would also like to say some things unrelated to your questions. We were talking about how baptism replaced circumcision, and you said St. Paul did not say that, however in Colossians 2:11-12, he talks of the “circumcision without hands.” Also, we were talking of the importance of baptism, and we mentioned that Jesus said belief and baptism saves (Mark 16:16), however I was rereading some Epistles, and in 1 Peter 3:20-21, it says:

”which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:“
‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Also, regarding Baptism of the Holy Spirit, which I believe is said to mean when one receives the Holy Spirit, I do believe that water baptism coincides with the baptism of the Spirit. For it is said in Acts 2:38 “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Also, in John 3:5, Jesus says ”Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.“
‭The “and” is inclusive, such that, by Baptism of Water, you will then be Baptized by the Spirit. This is illustrated in Matthew 3:16, after Jesus was baptized by water by St. John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

We were also talking about infant baptism, specifically on the practice of household baptisms, which are many in the New Testament (Acts 16:13-15, 32-34, 1 Corinthians 1:16). Let us look at Acts 16:13-15, it is said that Lydia had her heart open, and after, she and her entire household was baptized. This text does not state that she and her household believed; no, only that she believed.

It is incredibly notable that there was never a controversy about Infant Baptism until the Radical Reformation and the Anabaptists in the 16th century, the earliest of mentions (which we have) being by St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in the 2nd century, in his writing “Against Heresies,” which was a book made to rebuke the gnostics, who says “He [Jesus] came to save all through Himself; all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men.” Similarly, St. Hippolytus of Rome, a 3rd century writer, says in his “The Apostolic Tradition,” “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” It is said that the Gates of Hell would never overcome the Church (Matthew 16:18), so, do you truly believe that it only took a hundred years after the crucifixion of Our Lord, the early Christians had forgotten that you could only baptize believers? Further, it took a millennium and a half for this to be found out?

Another thing was immersive baptism vs sprinkling which you brought up. I will appeal to Scripture, but firstly I want to bring up the oldest Christian, non-Biblical document, the Didache, or “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles,” which is dated between the years 70-90, which means it possibly preceded the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse of John. The Didache is a small catechism of some of the teachings of the Apostles, and it says regarding Baptism in chapter 8: “But if you have neither [flowing water, immersive], pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” The Catholic Church no longer permits Baptism by Sprinkling (which is called baptism by aspersion). It is also unlikely that Jesus was baptized by immersion, as it is said in John 1:28 he was baptized in “Bethany beyond Jordan,” and if you see the baptism site of Jesus, it is unlikely He could have been fully immersed, as the water is not that high. Furthermore, the baptism of Our Lord of course has many parallels and references in the Bible. Let us take Numbers 4:1-3, you must be 30 years of age to enter the Priesthood, and of course Jesus is the High Priest (Hebrews 6:20). Then, they are consecrated with water by being washed (Exodus 29:1-4, Leviticus 8:4-6, Numbers 8:7), then there is the anointing of oil (Exodus 29:7), which is replaced with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16), there is then a verbal blessing (Exodus 39:43), and as we know, after Jesus was baptized, God commended the Son (Matthew 3:17). You may point to Mark 1:10, about Jesus coming out of the water, but that does not mean upon His head coming out of water, but rather, it could also mean His entire body; for example, when you tell somebody to get out of the shower, or to get out of the sea when they are merely knee deep. I also misspoke the other day, saying Baptism meant immersion in Greek, but I was wrong; it (baptizo) has multiple meanings, including ritual washing, ablution, and washing your hands. St. Luke uses a conjugation of the root of baptizo when referring to such in Luke 11:37-38. Furthermore, to stress this even more, writings from early Christians in the 3rd century affirm this, with Pope St. Cornelius writing in the year 251 “As he seemed about to die, he received Baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring.” In the year 255, St. Cyprian, answering whether baptism by pouring would be valid, answers “In the saving Sacraments, when necessity compels and when God bestows His pardon, divine benefits are bestowed fully upon believers; nor ought anyone be disturbed because the sick are poured upon when they receive the Lord’s grace.” It is clear the early Christians were consistent with the view that pouring, and even sprinkling, was valid; some preferred immersion, just as I do, but it is and wasn’t essential.

I also want to mention a few other discrepancies about the Catholic Church which you brought up sometime last year. Firstly, you mentioned the verse in Matthew where it says to call no man father (Matthew 23:9); firstly, Jesus was not speaking English, so the word “father” is not “abba.” Secondly, Joseph calls himself a father to Pharaoh in Genesis 45:8, Job calls himself a father in 29:16, Abraham is called a father in Acts 7:2, St. Paul calls Isaac a father in Romans 9:10, as well as using the word “father” constantly in Ephesians 6. Jesus also prohibits the word “Rabbi,” which in English is the word for “teacher,” and of course we call people teacher. 

Secondly, you bring up Matthew 6:7, and say Catholics use repetitive prayer, such as with the rosary. However, reading the entire verse, it says “as the heathen do,” the heathen being pagans. It would also be rather wrong to say that rosary prayers are vain; as demonstrated earlier, they are based on scripture. I also ask, have you never repeated a prayer before?

I now want to talk about the deuterocanon, which you call the apocrypha. Firstly, I believe I must ask, where did you get the canon of your Bible from? I will answer for you; you got it from the Catholic Church

I apologize for the length of this message, but I do hope it is informative. I hope you know, name, all I want is the fullest truth of Jesus Christ - I do not want a quarter, a half, or even 99%, I want the full truth; I want it for me, for you, and for everybody, as I want to see all of my brothers and sisters in Heaven. I do not write this merely for intellectual stimuli to defend some arbitrary point, rather, I write this because I love you.