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
I’m always bemused by the Revisionist’s facile rationalizations for ignoring parts of the Bible that don’t square with their dogma, but abandon those same rationalizations when applied to similar circumstances. (cf. “context” with regard to “keys to the kingdom, proper dress of women, divorce, et al)
Furthermore, one does not “prove” the “final authority” of the Bible by assuming it with the charge “unbiblical.”
In a very real sense, this has been like trying theology with a cultist. They are so fixated on “not losing,” they rarely attempt a critical evaluation of their own reasoning.
If you can get past the fact that Jesus left us a Church, not a book, I suppose you can get past anything.