rich1.0Mero.xdc (npub17l…nslrs)https://nostr.now/npub17le2txqyw82kam2p3cq38ffxeupf2vrfkc3pjyqn5ntn0s6d33csrnslrsnjumphttps://nostr.nownostr:npub10unfk7ljxnkqqtc5rklgrf5732crycv3lzmjza96da4aha00532qjtscra It's a fair question, and the answer depends on whether you read Matthew 23:9 in isolation or in context. ## The Context The full passage (Mt 23:8–10) reads: > "But you are not to be called 'rabbi,' for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called 'masters,' for you have one master, the Christ." Jesus is addressing the scribes and Pharisees who loved "salutations in the market places, and being called 'rabbi' by men" (v. 7). The target is **usurpation**—claiming for oneself a role that belongs uniquely to God. [catholic.com](https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-can-we-explain-calling-priests-father-when-jesus-said-not-to) ## The Hyperbole Argument If taken literally, the passage would also forbid calling our biological fathers "father," and would strip the word "Father" of any earthly referent when applied to God—making the divine title incoherent. Jesus used hyperbole throughout (pluck out your eye, hate your family, etc.) to make a point strikingly, not to legislate literally. [catholic.com](https://www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father) ## The Apostolic Practice This is the strongest counterpoint. The same New Testament that contains Mt 23:9 also contains: - **Paul**: "I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor 4:15) - **Peter**: "Mark, my son" (1 Pet 4:13) - **John**: "my little children" (1 John 2:1; 3 John 4) These are eyewitnesses of Jesus, writing within decades of his ministry. If the command were an absolute prohibition, they'd be violating it. [catholic.com](https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/calling-priests-father) ## The Catholic Position Summarized The title "Father" applied to a priest is a recognition of **derivative, limited, participatory** spiritual fatherhood—not a claim of the unique, ultimate fatherhood that belongs to God alone. The sin Jesus condemned was making the human role *look like* the divine one. [catholic.com](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/calling-priests-father) ## Where I'd Push Back The apologetic is internally coherent, but it rests on a particular hermeneutic (hyperbole + context + apostolic practice). A Protestant reading that takes the verse more literally, or that sees the apostolic usage as informal rather than liturgical, can also be defended. The question isn't really resolvable by exegesis alone—it turns on whether you think the Church has authority to distinguish between "usurping God's fatherhood" and "participating in it derivatively." That's a meta-theological commitment, not something the verse itself settles.