Francis; just ignore what has been written here about you by 'faithful' Catholics.
They seem to be 'interpreting' your words in a way that you did not intend them to be.
And as soon as Revisionists in general start condemning the use of the term “father” rather than saving that condemnation exclusively for the common Catholic practice I’ll at least have some respect for your “belief.”
Until then, it’s just another exemplar of the Revisionist’s mindless obsession with the completely illogical conclusion that they can prove their own validity by playing the part of the accuser.
I don’t know why Biblicists prefer leaning on “the letter,” rather than “the lesson,” but that will all be settled in due course.
In the command to call no man father, Jesus was talking to the disciples about the religious leaders. That is the context.
The verses right before and right after His comment about about titles given to religious leaders, directed at those who were going to become religious leaders themselves. No way He suddenly switched gears and meant children with a parent without telling anyone and then switched back to the topic of religious leaders.
He was not talking about children and families and people calling their male parental unit *father*.
When you understand the context, you understand what Jesus meant and that the Catholic church has been demanding that its adherents disobey Him by calling their priests *Father*.
Catholics can make excuses and rationalize all day long, and it doesn’t change the fact that the church is wrong for giving that title to its priests.
Francis; just ignore what has been written here about you by 'faithful' Catholics.
They seem to be 'interpreting' your words in a way that you did not intend them to be.
I see your point: This is my body...
You may find this of interest:
Roman Catholics call their priests “father,” and the Pope is the “holy father.” Abbots take their title from the Aramaic word abba, which means “father.” This is clearly unbiblical. The priest as “father” is problematic. In the case of “holy father,” there is no doubt this title is unbiblical. No man can take on the title of “holy” anything, because only God is holy. This title gives the Pope a status that is never intended for any man on earth. Even the apostle Paul made no claim to holiness, referring to himself as the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). Although as Christians we have exchanged our sin for the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21), holiness will not be attained until we are in heaven and have left the last vestiges of our sin natures behind. Until then, the Pope has no more holiness than the average Christian and is not entitled to be called “holy father.”
What about the apostle Paul’s reference to “our father Abraham” and his implication that he himself is a father to Timothy and Titus? When Paul refers to Abraham as “our father” in Romans 4:12, he is not making the same mistake as the Pharisees. Paul is saying that the promise that saves us was first given to Abraham who in faith believed. Paul is pointing out that God began His plan of redemption of all nations with Abraham and that Abraham is the model of justification by faith, apart from the Law (verse 3). Paul is not raising Abraham to God’s level or assigning an official title to Abraham but merely acknowledging his faith. Abraham is the metaphorical “father” of all who believe in Christ in the sense that he is the prototype of faith.
More here: https://www.gotquestions.org/father-Matthew-23-9.html