Your reactions seem angry and condescending.
I’m asking you how exactly you’re supposed to interpret the statement because you can’t ignore it, not asking for a torrent of accusations and bile.
Nice job on grasping the basics of sola scriptura interpretation though.
The articles posted in defense of the RC insistence on calling their priests and pope “Father” continue to show a lack of understanding on how to properly handle the Scriptures.
τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον.[6]
Which translates into:
I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father/pope, Heraclas.[7][8]
From the early 3rd century the title was applied generically to all bishops.[9][10] The earliest extant record of the word papa being used in reference to a Bishop of Rome dates to late 3rd century, when it was applied to Pope Marcellinus.[11]
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English is in an Old English translation (c. 950) of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_(word)
What in the world are you talking about, Luircin?!? You are 100% wrong! There was not one drop of "anger", or "bile", or any "accusations" or "condescension" intended in my reply in post #142, which was actually my response to another poster's post. (I just copied my reply to that poster to you and another poster too, because I knew those links I provided there would help to answer your questions to me in your posts as well.)
In that post #142 to that other poster, I listed a series of scriptural passages, and some related statements about those Bible texts. To summarize, basically those texts show that Jesus often used "hyperbole" when he spoke, in order to make a point more powerfully and effectively, such as when he told them to pluck their eyes out, and throw them away, if their eyes offended them (Matthew 5:29), or the other time where he told them that unless they hated their father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even their own life, they could not be his disciple (Luke 14:26). Jesus clearly did not mean those statements in a literal sense, but was just using hyperbole to drive his point home, and that is also what he was doing when he said to call no man father.
That can be ascertained just by reading the various Epistles and Gospels in the New Testament, where, on many occasions, the authors, directly inspired by God, called some man "father" on many occasions, which would have clearly violated that directive from Jesus, if he had really meant in it in a "literal" sense. (In that post #142, I provided the clear example of the Apostle Paul in Romans 4:11, under divine inspiration, calling a man named Abraham the "father" of all believers. If Jesus directive in Mattew 23:9 had been meant in a literal sense, Paul would have clearly been violating that directive of Jesus under the direct guidance of God, which, obviously wasn't happening, because Jesus didn't mean that in a literal sense, or God would not have inspired Paul to break that command.)
I told that other poster that when their is a contradiction between a man's interpretation of a statement from Jesus, and God's view of what was really meant by that statement made by Jesus, the man is always wrong, and God is always right.
(God would never have directed Paul to do something that was wrong.)
Many of the Gospels and Epistles in the New Testament (which were all written long after Jesus spoke those words about calling someone "father), contain similar references, calling some man "father", so there is obviously nothing wrong with doing that, or God would never have inspired all of those Bible writers to do that wrongful action.
In that post, I took the time to research and set up convenient links to a large number of sources, which would help to answer your questions and the others questions, then I wished everyone a Happy New Year, and God's blessings upon them. When I first read your post accusing me of "anger", and "bile", and "accusations" and "condescension", my first thought was that you must have been hitting the sauce just a little bit early on New Year's Eve, since there was not one smidgeon of "anger", or "bile", or "accusations", or "condescension" in that post #142! :-)
Please go ahead and check out those links in that post #142, and I'm sure you will at least see a clearer picture of our side that question.