One of the easiest ways to show that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church of God is to show how it approaches His word. Aside from historically banning the Bible, the modern Catholic Church continues to say that if you're going to own a Bible, you're still not allowed to interpret it by normal means. As the Council of Trent declares, "...no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold..."
To this day, the Catholic Church maintains its attitude that one must conform one's interpretation of scripture to the traditions of the Catholic Church. Not only do they argue this as a matter of authority, but they even claim this makes sense. After all, there are so many interpretations of the Bible, so why should ever Tom, Dick, and Harry be allowed to study it independently? Clearly we need an authoritative body to tell us what it really means.
There are two major problems with this, starting with the fact that adding middle men to your Bible study does not solve the problem of interpretations. This is a problem that can only ever be increased, as the final interpreter will always be yourself. Once the Catholic Church has interpreted the Bible for you, you must then begin to interpret their interpretations. Far better to just use the basic rules of hermeneutics to study the Bible. Read what it actually says.
This was the attitude of the early Church, to the extent where, aside from being repeatedly told to test our teachers, we actually have at least one example of them doing so. In Acts 17:10-13, Paul and Silas preach in Berea. The Bereans, being "fair minded", tested Paul's teachings against the scriptures. They did not use Paul to interpret the Bible, but rather, they used the Bible to test Paul. And not just the Jews. "Prominent Greeks", likewise, believed Paul because of this. Those who had and knew the scriptures, the Jews, tested Paul against them, and found him true. Those who did not have or know the scriptures, the Greeks, tested Paul against them, and came to faith.
Paul, as any faithful Christian should know, is a legitimate leader in the Christian faith. Hand chosen by Christ Himself, Paul preached the Gospel as a steward of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1). Nevertheless, he submitted to the test of scripture from both Jew and Gentile alike. He did not rebuke them. He did not attempt to overthrow them. He did not belittle them. By inspiration of God, Luke even praised them, calling them "fair minded". Now, if Paul, in his legitimate capacity as an Apostle, yielded to the "private interpretations" of the scriptures, how can Catholics claim their leaders are above such tests?
But still, do we not have the problem of multiple interpretations? Yes, and no. It is true that there is much division between those who claim the name "Christian". But there are three important things to consider:
The problem is grossly overexaggerated.
The problem is a human problem, not a Bible problem.
The solution is most certainly not submission to the Catholic Magisterium.
Firstly, the problem is exaggerated in many ways. While we are told "there are many interpretations of the Bible", and we are further assured that there are anywhere between 30-60,000 denominations of Christianity, this simply isn't the case. First of all, there aren't many interpretations of the Bible, but rather, there are various interpretations of verses within it. Particularly regarding the Reformation, most "Protestant" denominations differ on the tiniest things. Infant baptism, yay or nay? You don't have to disagree on everything else to disagree on that one issue. In fact, you can agree on literally everything else, disagree on that one issue, and boom, whole new denomination.
This, by the way, is the reason for the grossly exaggerated figure. There are nowhere near 30,000 denominations. One could barely make a case for more than 1,000. And that's if you include the obviously heretical ones. Which, in their attempt to prove the insufficiency of scripture, Catholics often do.
Nevertheless, it's clear that multiple interpretations do exist. So does this not prove scripture is insufficient? Certainly not. Scripture is sufficient, that doesn't mean we are. Think of it this way: nothing is sufficient for a newborn. How can a child that cannot even say "sound doctrine" also know sound doctrine?
Let us use an analogy. Let's imagine a student who wants to get to college, 2 miles away. Is a car sufficient to get him there? Let's add, the student has no driving license. Where does the problem lie? With the car, or the student? Obviously, with the student. A well designed, well maintained car should easily be able to make a 4 mile round trip. Even if the college was 400 miles away, the car would need nothing more than a full tank of fuel. But because the student has no licence, he will have to take the bus.
In much the same way, scripture may well be sufficient for us, this does not mean we are sufficient. We have flaws ranging from limited literacy, all the way up to cold blooded sin. It makes sense, though the word of God gives understanding to the simple (Psalm 119:130), that we will find at least some of it difficult to understand. No man, save Christ, has ever been infallible, and so it is possible to misinterpret scripture.
But on top of that, many people err for the same reason as Catholics. The Catholic Church is not the only one to impose its traditions upon the word of God. Prior to them, the Pharisees, whom the Catholic Church mirrors all too often, would interpret scripture by their traditions, and impose that upon their students. To this day, many Churches, and many individual Christians, misinterpret scripture, not because of any flaw in scripture, but simply because when scripture says "right", their Church says "left". And so they must explain how right really means left.
But this is a poor attitude, and shows why Catholicism is a poor solution. No matter how well you understand God, if you have two brain cells to rub together, you know that anyone who disagrees with Him is wrong. Therefore, when the Bible, which Catholics acknowledge is the word of God, says "right", and the Catholic Church says "left", the Catholic Church is wrong.
And so we see that the Catholic approach to interpreting scripture is wrong in every possible sense. Aside from the complete absence of logic in saying "every interpretation can't be right, therefore ours is", it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that a book, especially one acknowledged to be divinely inspired, would need an organisation to interpret it on our behalf. Furthermore, making such a suggestion runs counter to the example found within the scriptures. In the Bible, we see scripture being used to test even the Gospel as presented by a legitimate Apostle of God. By contrast, in Catholicism, we see tradition being used to interpret scripture. No matter what the clear teaching of scripture is, this is set aside if it conflicts with an established Catholic doctrine. In this sense, the Catholic Church is more like the obstructive Jews of Thessalonica than the fair minded people of Berea. My friends, if you are to call yourselves Christian, be a Berean. Let neither man nor Church take your Bible from your hands. Rather, search the scriptures daily, and if you do not find something to be true, cast it back into the pits of Hell.