Gospel Mk 7:1-13
When the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem
gathered around Jesus,
they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals
with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
(For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews,
do not eat without carefully washing their hands,
keeping the tradition of the elders.
And on coming from the marketplace
they do not eat without purifying themselves.
And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed,
the purification of cups and jugs and kettles and beds.)
So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him,
“Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders
but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?”
He responded,
“Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites,
as it is written:
This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.
You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”
He went on to say,
“How well you have set aside the commandment of God
in order to uphold your tradition!
For Moses said,
Honor your father and your mother,
and Whoever curses father or mother shall die.
Yet you say,
‘If someone says to father or mother,
“Any support you might have had from me is qorban”’
(meaning, dedicated to God),
you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
You nullify the word of God
in favor of your tradition that you have handed on.
And you do many such things.”
Did you not just previously say that Christ was referring to the Pharisees when He said "call no man Father"?
Those whom would lift themselves up as being the latter-day Sanhedrin (wherever those may be found -- check your local listings) can truly fit the bill.
Yet even so, a few of those who had been among the Sanhedrin, did eventually convert to become followers and disciples of Christ...
And so it can be that some of these whom are within this stinking "papal system" --- which has evolved like some organically cancerous web that has grown and spread, to become irremovable, woven as it is into and throughout Roman Catholicism, can still themselves be among God's own adopted children.
With God all things are possible? You know, like in Himself being able to overcome the weaknesses and failings of men -- even when a variety of those have become institutionalized...
Yet even then, none of those can sire newly adopted children into the Kingdom of God, (none ascends unto heaven but he who comes down from heaven) thus in that sense be truly Father, or at any time, in any way be most properly addressed or thought of as a Father of those whom are but themselves (all of them) brethren within the Church.
It truly is that simple, which is why there are many who are adamant for not addressing others (within the Church, and in a spiritual sense) "Father".
Our Father, who is in Heaven, hallowed by thy name -- not "our Father who is in heaven, hallowed by thy stand-in, hireling priests"
Here (at this John Martignoni link, and shown below) is a good brief biblical explanation explaining the Catholic interpretation of that directive from Jesus recorded in Matthew 23.
The Bible says to call no man Father, so why do we call our priests "Father"?
Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in Heaven." Notice, however, that this makes no distinction between spiritual fathers, which is what our priests are to us, and biological fathers. In other words, if you interpret this passage to say, absolutely, that no man is to be called father, you cannot distinguish between calling a priest, father, and calling the man who is married to your mother, father.
But, is that actually what this passage is saying? Or is Jesus warning us against trying to usurp the fatherhood of God? Which, in many ways, is what the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They wanted all attention focused on them...they were leaving God, the Father, out of the equation. Which is why Jesus goes on to call them hypocrites, liars, and whitewashed tombs.
If you interpret this passage from Matthew 23 as an absolute ban against calling anyone your spiritual father, then there are some problems for you in the rest of Scripture. For example, Jesus, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, has the rich man referring to Abraham as "father" several times. Paul, in Romans chapter 4, refers to Abraham as the "father" of the uncircumcised, the Gentiles. That's referring to spiritual fatherhood, not biological fatherhood.
In Acts 7:1-2, the first Christian martyr, Stephen, referred to the Jewish authorities and elders who were about to stone him as brothers and "fathers," as does Paul in Acts, chapter 22. This is referring to spiritual fatherhood. So, if you interpret Matthew 23 as saying we cannot call anyone our spiritual father, then you have a problem with Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and the Holy Spirit...they must have all gotten it wrong.
It is okay to call priests "father", just as it was okay for Jesus and Paul to call Abraham "father" and for Stephen and Paul to call the Jewish elders "father." As long as we remember that our true Father is God the Father and that all aspects of fatherhood, biological and spiritual, are derived from Him. And as long as we do not allow anyone else to usurp that role in any way, shape, or form, as the Pharisees and Scribes were prone to do.