[metmom]

You can make all the excuses you want.

The Catholic church is wrong for addressing its priests as *father*.

It is direct disobedience of Jesus command and no amount of rationalization can change that.

[imardmd1]

It is not wrong to accord a man as being so spiritually mature that he has recruited disciples and indoctrinated them to the point where they have under conviction of the Holy Spirit made their own observation of personal depravity and have persistently committed their trust in Jesus as Lord and Messiah, seen them inducted into lifelong discipleship through the delegated authority of the rite of water immersion, then continued to teach them to keep watchfully secure and unchanged whatsoever Jesus imparted to His chosen disciple-apostles such that they have overcome the Evil One; for Beloved John claims this for himself as well as for coequally spiritually mature men (1 John 2:12-14, 3:18, 4:4, 5:21; 3 Jn. 1:4), as also has Paul (1 Cor. 4:15; 2 Cor 6:13; Gal. 4:19; 1 Thess. 2:7, 11; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2, 2:1; Titus 1:4); and such show that there are such persons.

However, in 1 Jn. 2:15 John shows (as compared to the immediately previous verse), as do other writers, that The God Whose Spirit created in us a newly born child in the spirit is our Heavenly Father, Whose Title of "Father" is reserved for Him Only, as He is The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which no human ought to appropriate for himself, and which should not be used for that person as an honorary title, nor for that matter should the title "Reverend": "He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: (H)holy and (R)everend is (H)is name^(title)" (Ps._111:9 AV; my capitalization and superscript).

When Jesus said this:

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Mt. 23:9 AV).

I believe this is in the same sense, that one should not accord a religious luminary the title "Father," which is reserved only for our Heavenly Father. That does not mean that one ought not call his/her earthly progenitor the familiar respectful term "father."

If I were to corral a person and convince him/her of the need for a Savior, see that one become a disciple, and lead him/her in that way to the stage of spiritual young adulthood in that he/she had practically overcome wickedness in their lifestyle, I might think of myself as that one's spiritual father and he(she) a "Timothy" and be thought of as such. But it would be wrong to permit the title "Father" to be even thought of, let alone assumed.

That would be a bit over the top, eh?