The Catholic Church claims to have sole authority to correctly interpret the meaning of scripture. As a result, its apologists will often dismiss any interpretation contrary to their doctrines as invalid, not because of any rule of language, but because the one making it "lacks authority". I even remember debating one particularly annoying Catholic who, whenever I would so much as cite scripture, would always say "remember your interpretation has no authority". And that was basically three quarters of his argument.
You would think, with all this boasting about authority, the Catholic Church would have a book of official interpretations the size of 20 Bibles. But actually, throughout history, the Catholic Church has given its official ruling on only a small handful of scriptures. The trouble is, when they do, they tend to be demonstrably incorrect. Take, for example, First Vatican Council's interpretation of Matthew 16:18:
"At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema."
Now, let's be honest here, you're not going to get any of that from the Bible. Nor, in fact, would you get that from basically any of the Church "Fathers". Take, for example, this extract from Augustine's Retractions: "In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable."
And so we see that, of all people, Augustine did not take the same view of Matthew 16:18 that First Vatican Council declared was the "clear teaching of scripture". It's quite ironic when the Catholic Church anathematises a Saint, but this would explain why they don't often issue official interpretations on scripture: Their interpretations are rarely, if ever, valid, much less authoritative.
Christians, by contrast, do not need to make extravagant claims of authority, because we can simply show what scripture actually says. We can, for example, point to 1 Timothy 2:5-6, which says "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,", which shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the Catholic Church is wrong to say Mary is co-mediatrix.
"But only the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret scripture, so your interpretation is wrong!" Well ok, come on then, what does 1 Timothy 2:5-6 actually mean? "Not what you think it means." But what does it mean? "It cannot mean Christ is our only mediator, because "...the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."" (CCC 969). But tell me, my Catholic friend, what does the verse mean?
Speaking as a Christian, when the Bible says "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time," I think it means "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,". I don't need to claim authority, the scripture is my authority. Realistically, all I need to do is read it to you. This often results in conflict with some Catholic doctrine or other, but while Catholics spend so much time boasting in their imaginary authority, they can never actually show a flaw in the Christian interpretation, nor can they show their own interpretations are even remotely valid. In fact, it can usually be demonstrated that they aren't.
Of course, the rare exceptions are when the Catholic Church is actually right, or at the very least not 100% wrong. They're quite capable of defending the Trinity, or the pro-life cause, or the resurrection, all from scripture. Maybe not necessarily alone, but when the Catholic Church actually believes the Bible, they have no problem citing it. And they don't need to boast in their authority, they can just show "look, this is what the Bible says". But then, one of their many pagan traditions raises its ugly head, or someone will speak a Biblical truth that runs counter to their narrative, and suddenly "only the Catholic Church has authority to interpret the Bible."
Without that claim to authority, the Catholic Church would crumble as swiftly as the sand it is built on. Unlike Catholics, Christians can show right from the very page that our interpretations are correct, or at the very least valid. We can say things like "setting aside your imaginary authority, can you see why an objective reader might take this interpretation?" Can you see why an objective reader might take Ephesians 2:8-10 to mean we are saved by grace through faith, not of works? It may run counter to your Church's teachings, but only someone exposed to your Church's teachings would interpret "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" as "by grace you are saved, through faith, but that grace is handed out piecemeal through the 7 Sacraments, which are very heavily works-oriented. Oh and by the way, if your atheist dad had you baptised before he died, God was proud of him, so you can pray to him now." (No kidding, the Pope actually said that.)
When we do the same for Catholic interpretations, there are some that can be sympathised with. I can understand, for example, how they might interpret James 2:24 as "we are not saved by faith alone", not because it is a valid interpretation of the verse in context of the whole chapter and all other relevant scriptures, but because if James 2:24 was all the context you had, and if you didn't know the difference between salvation and justification (hint: Even God can be justified, Luke 7:29), one can see why a Catholic might take "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" to mean "a man is saved by works, and not by faith only." At this point, we simply expand our reading and show that, in context, James is not saying, at open variance with the clear teaching of scripture, that salvation is by works. Rather, he is saying works are the evidence of faith.
But then you come to 2 Peter 1:20, which Catholics expect you to privately interpret to mean you can't privately interpret scripture. Yes, that's their argument. Mere logic alone refutes this idea, but when you expand your reading (if, indeed, you even need to) by just one verse on either side, you see that Peter isn't talking about how we read scripture, but how God inspired scripture.
Above, you pretty much have a summary of Catholic apologetics, as far as it relates to scripture. If you can get them to talk about scripture, they'll explain to you why they don't think you have the right to talk about scripture. Then they'll demonstrate that in order to be Catholic, you pretty much have to mishandle scripture. This Church knows only too well that the Bible, which is not only the word of God, but specifically acknowledged as such within the Catholic Church, does not support the Catholic Church. Therefore, it attempts to take away your authority to read!
But my friends, read anyway. A lot of blood was spilled to ensure the Catholic Church wouldn't be able to physically stop you from reading the Bible. Now all that's left is that mental barrier. It is a lie that only the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret the Bible, and it's not even a convincing one. The official interpretation of scripture is found in scripture, not in a Church that used to confiscate and burn Bibles (and the people who translated them).