boatbums:
You are perfectly welcome to understand the passage within your protestant theological framework. Since I reject much of the protestant theological, framework, I will accept the Catholic [and Eastern Orthodox] theological framework for the use of the word Father in a spiritual and patriarchal sense for Bishops and priests.
And of course Gill’s commentary is constructed in such a way that spiritual father is acceptable, which then negates the way that most of the protestants here are interpreting it. Gill’s commentary does indicate that Christ’s statements in MT 23:9 did contain some hyperbole and was not a Universal rejection of the use of the term father. It is just you Protestants don’t like the distinction of the Title Pope for the Bishop of Rome vs. the use of the term Father for parish clergy, I guess.
Nobody here wants to address the uses of the term spiritual father by Saint Paul and Saint John, which as I said before, is entirely in line with the Catholic use of father.
I don't think that is true at all. Be careful when you reject out-of-hand those things you refer to as a "protestant theological framework" for your preferred "Catholic theological framework", you will miss things. What I have been reading here is the acceptance of both a "paternal" physical as well as spiritual relationship but without the mandating of the addressing of clergy with such titles and honorifics which DO offend what Jesus was commanding of his disciples.
We have no evidence that Peter or Paul or any of the other Apostles commanded their spiritual "children" to address them as "Father" or "Rabbi" or "Master". Nor do I see such specification in the writings of those we call the "Early Church Fathers". I don't think this is splitting hairs but there IS a difference between acknowledging a role of paternity and demanding to be called by the title. I think this is at the gist of Jesus' reprimand in light of his previous words condemning the Pharisees for just such conduct.