Dear Cassie:

It is good to quote a verse, the Catechism, and a Saint that refer to the issues you present about anti-Catholic views and interpretations of things within the Catholic Church.

John 7:24 "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

From the Catholic Catechism:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. [St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22]

 

Anti-Catholic bias in many Protestants, in particular fundamentalists, can be very fanciful in its imagination. It sees symbols in Catholicism and rashly presumes and judges it to be demonic because these people are ignorant. Ignorance is the fundamental cause of bigotry.

For example, the anti-Catholic sees images of the upside-down cross in Catholic art and presumes that means the demonic. In fact, the upside-down cross is not even used by true Satanists. As one satanist remarks, "You Christians do not know your own symbols. We do not use the upside-down cross as this is the symbol of Peter." St. Peter was crucified upside-down.

The anti-Catholic never asks the Catholic what this means, and if he does, he will arrogantly not believe the explanation.

Another example is the Crucifix used by Pope St. John Paul. According to many fundamentalists, this crucifix has demonic origins.

Allegedly, according to anti-Catholics and to some wacko schismatic ultra-traditionalists and sedevacantist Catholics, Satanists used this cross in the fifth and sixth centuries. "Black magicians and sorcerers in the Middle Ages had used it for occult purposes. It represented the 'Mark of the Beast'" says Henry Makow in his article about another assorted nut, the defrocked and schismatic conspiracy nut, Piers Compton and his thin book, The Broken Cross, available on Amazon for $250 paperback and $2500 hardback. Better buy it now before the rush.

It may be from this defrocked priest that the Protestant fundamentalists came to their opinions.

In actuality, this crucifix was the artistic creation of Lello Scorzelli (1921-1997). It was commissioned by Pope Paul VI. Thus, it hardly was used by Satanists in the 6th century.

The Idle Speculations website gives this explanation of the symbology of this crucifix:

The Scorzelli crucifix is post-modern, and therefore speaks to the timelessness of the Church. It is a bent cross, which symbolises the humility of Christ, who bends down from His Throne, to hold out His Hand in love. It bears the figure of the suffering Christ, to remind us of the pain our sins have caused. It is realistic, and therefore reminds us that Christ is no mythological figure, that He did indeed walk among us, that His sufferings, death and resurrection were real.

I answered another question about symbols that has this and other examples of the nutball parade's interpretation of symbology.

As for the Ram, again we have a lot of ignorance leading to bigotry. The Ram is a Christian symbol. From the Catholic Saint website:

The Meaning of the Ram as a Catholic Christian Symbol

Catholic Christian symbolism in art provides a clear graphic illustration which represents people or items of religious significance. What is the definition and the meaning of the Ram? The Ram is a male of the sheep and allied animals. The Ram Christian Symbol represents protection as the ram protected the herd and also symbolises sacrifice as the ram was one of the first animals to be sacrificed on alters, hence their Latin name Aries which comes from aris meaning "alters".. It is a symbol for Christ taken from the Old Testament.

Reference to the Ram Christian Symbol in the Bible

The following reference to the ram in the Bible:

Gen. 22:13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram(n) caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided."

The son of Hezron, and one of the ancestors of the royal line (Ruth 4:19). The margin of 1 Chr. 2:9, also Matt. 1:3, 4 and Luke 3:33, have "Aram."

One of the sons of Jerahmeel (1 Chr. 2:25, 27).

A person mentioned in Job 32:2 as founder of a clan to which Elihu belonged. The same as Aram of Gen. 22:21.

Christian Symbolism

The definition and the meaning of Symbols or Icon in early religious art forms.

A Catholic sign or icon, such as the Ram Christian Symbol, is an object, character, figure, or color used to represent abstract ideas or concepts - a picture that represents an idea. A religious icon, such as the Ram Christian Symbol, is an image or symbolic representation with sacred significance. The meanings, origins and ancient traditions surrounding Christian symbols date back to early times when the majority of ordinary people were not able to read or write and printing was unknown. Many were 'borrowed' or drawn from early pre-Christian traditions.

The anti-Catholic never asks the Catholic what this means, and if he does, he will arrogantly not believe the explanation.

As for the video you mentioned, I am not sure which one you viewed, but I did find this one presented by a "Reptilian Resistance." Emm I could make a lot out of that name 

The producers of this video are obviously prejudice as they rashly make conclusions, judgments, or assertions and innuendos that are negative to the Church. 

As prejudiced people can never be trusted, we first need to question whether or not the information in this video is even correct. Here is the Vatican virtual tour through the Necropolis. 

Even if the inscriptions and artifacts are accurately reported by the producers of this video, we next need to examine if the producers are accurately interpreting the artifacts, inserting rash judgment, or otherwise distorting the facts.

Remember, the anti-Catholic never asks the Catholic what this means, and if he does, he will arrogantly not believe the explanation. 

The narrator repeatedly ask why the Church does not do this or that. Well, why not ask! They never do, so I will answer what is not asked by a few examples.

Most of the points made in this video involve artifacts that were not create by the Church but found in the catacombs under the Vatican. These catacombs were used by Roman pagans long before St. Peter was buried there and the Vatican built on top. Thus, of course, pagan burials and artifacts will be found. The anti-Catholic producers suggest that a genuine Christian Church would clear out these pagan artifacts.

To remove these items would be to destroy the archaeological site. This would be a tragedy. I am sure that these same people would be in an uproar if Muslims destroyed a Christian archaeological site found under one of their buildings. It is good and proper to maintain the archaeological site. No intelligent or reasonable person would suggest the destruction of an ancient archaeological site.

As Catholics, we believe that God is greater than any idol or pagan relic. We have nothing to fear from these inanimate objects. Why are fundamentalists so afraid of them?

The narrator mentioned the presence of a Medusa. This is not a Medusa, but a Gorgon. (just a bit of ignorance here)  Gorgons were believed to have the power to avert evil forces. This is a pagan practice, not a Christian one. We need to remember that these catacombs are almost entirely pagan burial tombs, not Christian.

I noticed that the narrator point out holes in which food was offered to the dead and saying this is a common Catholic practice. Well, this is not a Catholic practice and those holes are specifically identified as Roman, not Christian. It was pagan Romans who believed that the soul could refresh itself in this way. What is a horrid bit of abject bigotry is the assertion that this was "common Catholic practice." This is not just a rash judgment but an outright lie. What makes this evil is that the producers ignored the plain narrative that this was a Roman practice.

These two examples are indicative of the mind of a bigot, filled with rash judgments, lies, and ignorance.

As for graven images, in Exodus 20 2-17 the first (not the second) commandment instructs us to not worship graven images. It does not prohibit the making or owning of graven images.

In fact, we see five chapters later that God Himself orders Moses to build the Ark of of the Covenant with graven images (e.g., cherubim). Exodus 25:18-21~

18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark; and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you.

So, did God gravely sin? Did he violate the Commandment of Himself? Of course not.

It is the use of graven images as idols to be worshiped that is prohibited. When Moses and Joshua knelt before the Ark were they worshiping the graven images of the angels? No, they were worshiping the presence of God who resided in the Ark.

Catholics do not worship idols, statues, paintings, the Pope, Mary, scapulars, the Rosary, or anything else but God alone.

And I could go on with many more pages proving the bigotry of the producer of this video, but I haven't the time. These two examples, however, illustrate the point.

Ignore these nimrods. It is not worth fretting over.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary