Is it wrong for Catholics to refer to their priests as "father"?

This clearly cannot refer to our father in the flesh, for Scripture is very insistent that all respect should be paid to one’s earthly father and mother. It most clearly refers to calling anyone on earth “father” in a spiritual sense, standing in contrast to the Father in Heaven. To call anyone “father” in a religious sense is an insult to the great Father in Heaven. But the Roman priesthood sets aside this prohibition. That theirs is a religious fatherhood is clearly manifest, for they are celibate. By the laws of their Church they are not allowed to marry.

Such titles as Rabbi (Teacher) or Father or Master (Leader) are neither to be given to men, nor are men to accept them. The Lord is plainly speaking in a spiritual sense, for of course a natural father is entitled to be called such by his children. But designations which put one in any place of spiritual prominence are to be totally refused. Men may invent variations of these such as "reverend," which is worse, for the title means "worthy of reverence."

On the other hand, scripture is clear that there are those who are in a spiritual way "fathers" (1Cor.4:15), "teachers", "Pastors," "evangelists" (Ephesians 4:11), and "leaders" (Heb.13:17--J.N.D.trans.), but to give or to accept a title as such is strictly forbidden by the Lord. Only Christ has a right to the title "Teacher" or "Leader," and only God the Father in heaven is entitled to being designated "Father." "All ye are brethren," He insists; that is, none are above others, but on the same plane.

The spirit of the disciples was to be the opposite of all that. They were not to be called Rabbi, for Christ alone was their Master, and they were brethren; they were not any more to call others by the name of father, for one only was their Father He who is in the heavens; finally they were not to be called teachers, for Christ alone was He who taught them. He who would be great in their midst was to be their servant, for whoever exalted himself on earth would be abased, and he who abased himself would be exalted. This is just what Christ has done, whilst man, having wished to exalt himself and be as God, has been abased and will be yet more in facing the judgment of God. (Compare Phil. 2.)

Surely also we can and ought to take the moral profit of our Lord's censure of the scribes and Pharisees: for what is the heart! We have to beware of imposing on others that which we are remiss to observe ourselves. We have to watch against doing works to be seen of men. We have to pray against the allowance of the world's spirit — the love of pre-eminence, both within and without (vers. 4-7). Hence the word is, "Be not ye called Rabbi; for One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no one your father upon the earth; for One is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for One is your Master, even Christ." The question here is not of the various gifts which the Lord confers by the Holy Ghost on His members in His body the Church, but of religions authority in the world and a certain status and respect by virtue of ecclesiastical office or position. But the great moral principle of the kingdom (which is always true) is enforced here: "He that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (vers. 8-12). The cross and the heavenly glory would but deepen the value and significance of these words of the Saviour; but even before either, and independently of the new order of things in the Church, they bore His stamp and were current for the kingdom.

(2) Such were the Jewish leaders: among the disciples Jesus enjoins them that such things were not to be. They were not to be called Rabbi, but to be all brethren; with Christ alone their real Teacher. There was to be no authority among them but His own; no claim of spiritual fatherhood but for the Heavenly Father; nor of leadership, again; for any but Christ. The "leader" here (kathegetes) is more than teacher: he is the teacher who may have many teachers under him. All this, as it plainly calls for most serious attention on the part of all who call Christ Lord in truth, so also it needs wisdom in the application: for all these terms, "teacher," "father," "leader,*" are applied in Scripture itself to disciples, and cannot be meant, therefore, to be in an absolute way forbidden. But it was in Israel then; as it has come to be so largely in the Christian Church today, that those who should have been the servants of their brethren claimed to be masters, and stood between the consciences of men and Him who is alone the Lord of the conscience. Neither the Church as a whole nor any class of men in it can claim aright authoritative place for their teaching, which Scripture alone (as the word of the Lord) has; and yet this is what, with many modifications, is continually being done, and the people of God also are on their side not merely allowing but prompting the claim. In this way the word of God loses irreparably; it is made plastic in the hands of men; and, dethroned from its place of authority, it becomes subject to the reproach which attaches to all human handiwork: infidelity finds its own in this degradation. The louder and more authoritative the Church's voice, the more that of God through His word becomes silenced and unheard.

If the gift of an evangelist was not, in New Testament times, conferred through any human channel, it is equally true that it brought no human distinction or title with it. To assume such was forbidden by Christ to His servants (Matt. 23:8-9). Yet professed servants of Christ claim a title which, unlike that of Rabbi, really belongs to God alone. "Holy and reverend is His Name. Others insist on being called "Father -," in defiance of our Lord's prohibition.

The words of C. H. Spurgeon are worthy of note in this connection: "There are a great many reverend, very reverend, and right reverend sinners in the world. For myself I desire to be known henceforth simply as a servant of God, and I want my walk and conversation to prove that I am His servant indeed. If I, the servant of God, am to be esteemed in any measure by my fellow Christians, it shall not be because in front of my name, an attribute stolen from God has been placed by an ordaining council, neither shall it be because my collar is buttoned at the back, or my coat is clerical in cut, but only for my work's sake."

God spoke of Moses in these words-"My servant Moses ... is faithful in all mine house" (Num. 12:7). What a great honor this is: to be called by God, "My servant"! So the apostles in prayer to God spoke of themselves as "thy servants" (Acts 4:29). And in Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus call themselves "the servants of Jesus Christ." Surely this is honor enough. The Lord said to His disciples: "be not ye called Rabbi (Master or Teacher) : for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matt. 23: 8-11). Certainly these words are plain enough against all present day ministerial titles.

Even back in the days of Job, Elihu said: "Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away" (Job 32:21, 22). It is surely out of place for followers of the rejected and crucified Savior to bear flattering titles. We are rather to expect to receive abusive titles from the world as did our Lord. "Doctor of Divinity" was never given as a title by the Holy Spirit to any man, and the word "pastor" (with a small "p"), describes the nature of one of the gifts from the Lord and is not used as a title in Scripture. But we do read of "Philip the evangelist" (Acts 21:8).

In the days of the Apostle there were no recognised orders of "clergy" and "laity." The scriptural simplicity of the early faith was held by all. They recognised, according to the Lord's own teaching, that all were brethren in Christ, and they "called no man father," much less "Holy father," a title applied only to God Himself.

And there is a deeper meaning still to verses 8-10. We quote from one who has expressed it in simple as well as beautiful language. "It is a declaration of the essential relations of man to God. Three things constitute a Christian: What He is, what he believes, what he does; doctrine, experience, practice. Man needs for his spiritual being three things: Life, instruction, guidance; just what our Lord declares in the ten words of the Gospel, 'I am the way, and the truth and the life.' The Roman Catholic 'church'... has caught these three things with its usual insight and avows its ability to supply them. The office of the Roman Catholic 'church' is claimed to be threefold: the priestly office imparting and sustaining life by means of the sacraments; the teaching office endowed with infallibility; the guiding office by spiritual confessors. These three things are just what our Lord forbids in the passage under consideration. Acknowledge no man as Father; for no man can impart or sustain spiritual life; install no man as an infallible teacher; allow no one to assume the office of spiritual director; your relation to God and to Christ is as close as that of any other person." (Western: The Genesis of the New Testament)