In Matthew 23:9, Jesus says:

Matthew 23:9 (NIV)


What is the Roman Catholic view on this? In the Roman Catholic Church there are at least two titles that are based on the word father: abbot (head of a monastery) and pope (head of the Church). In addition to this, it is common to address a priest with the title father (at least in fiction). How do the Roman Catholic Church reconcile these two facts?

  • 4
    Did you know that that was the reading at Mass yesterday or is this just a coincidence? – Peter Turner Oct 31 '11 at 18:06
  • 11
    What do you call your father? "Bob can you pass the salt?" How do you reconcile this? – James Black Nov 1 '11 at 1:37
  • 5
    @JamesBlack Obviously, Jesus is not talking about our earthly fathers, that would just be silly. – Shathur Nov 1 '11 at 7:39
  • 4
    @Shathur - But, if people are going to be so literal about "Call no man father", even though that word was a translation, then why not have it apply to the man who raised you? – James Black Nov 1 '11 at 23:22
  • 3
    @JamesBlack, you reconcile it by looking at the context. In Matthew 23:1-10 Jesus was speaking about contemporary religious leaders, the titles used by such leaders, and what kind of (religious) titles his followers should use. This is why he said in verse 8 that "you are all brothers". To ask "What do you call your father?" sounds like an attempt to invalidate what Jesus said in verse 9. Anyway even according to a very literal interpretation like that it would still be wrong to call a religious leader "father". – coderworks Jul 14 '17 at 20:10

It's pretty blatant hyperbole, evidenced by the fact that St. Peter and St. Paul both used the term "father" in their letters freely and repeatedly.

In Romans 4:11-12:


In Romans 9:10:


In 1 Corinthians 4:15:


In 1 Thessalonians 2:11:


In 1 Timothy 5:1:


In Hebrews 12:9:


In James 2:21:


In 1 John 2:13:


St. Paul also used it in Acts 22:1:


As well as St. Stephen in Acts 7:2:


The list of references to the apostles calling people (or themselves) fathers continues on from there.

The dead giveaway though is in Matthew 19:18-19, when Jesus himself makes mention of worldly fathers in his recitation of the commandments:


Jesus was known for using hyperbole as a rhetorical device. Consider Matthew 5:29-30:


Obviously, Jesus doesn't mean for you to pluck your eye out or cut your hand off.

So if it's not meant to be taken literally, what was the point Jesus was trying to convey? For that, I turn to an essay on Catholic Answers, which was declared nihil obstat by the Censor Librorum of the Archdiocese of San Diego:

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. [...] To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.


This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.

  • 5
    The verse from 1 Corinthians is the only one that might convince me. The verses about Abraham (and Isaac) could support your point, but since Paul was a jew, he might have referred to Abraham as his forefather (many times the Bible makes no difference between "father" and "forefather"). In the following I interpret "fathers" as fathers or elder men in general, not the author's own fathers. And Matthew 19:18-19 is obviously referring to our earthly fathers. Still, you answer my question with the Catholic explanation for this, so I accept your answer. – Shathur Nov 1 '11 at 7:52
  • 3
    1 Corinthians 4:15 doesn't have the word father in the Greek. Father wasn't used as a spiritual title for men in these verses. Father is used for physical fathers or figuratively, but not spiritually. – user16659 Jan 4 '12 at 19:04

Rather than answering in comments, let me answer here.

First, if you look at the rest of the verses: Matt 23: 8-12


It would appear we shouldn't call anyone instructor or teacher, if we shouldn't call anyone father.

But, as pointed out by others, the prohibition isn't on the word, itself.

The issue is that the Pharisees would expect the best seats, and the best treatment, as they held themselves as father figures as well as teachers, so, they were arrogant, rather than being humble before God, they put themselves above God.

We should strive to be humble before others and before God, rather than holding ourselves up.

So, the entire question can be put into context by reading the rest of the verses, and see that just taking one verse out of context can be misleading.

And for an interesting article on the word used in this verse you can look at:


  • Yes, I had the entire context in mind when writing the question. My question is not how the RCC reconciles the usage of the word "father" with these verses. I personally think that even if a particular priest, abbot or pope is humble, these titles are inviting people to be proud. But I get what you and the others say and maybe this prohibition is about people that are not deserving of the title and that there are some people that really are deserving of the title. But even if that is the case, I think it would be better to not use them at all to avoid pride as much as possible. – Shathur Nov 3 '11 at 9:15
  • 3
    So we should avoid teacher, instructor, doctor as well? – James Black Nov 4 '11 at 0:32
  • 1
    As Jesus stated: yes. There's to much potential pride involved. If someone looks at you and call you some of those titles and you accept it, you will soon look at yourself as that title, which is a huge risk for pride. Jesus told us to humble ourselves and he even told us not to let other people exalt us. I don't think there's any great need for those titles and God already fulfills all of them. We don't need bishops and priests: The Holy Spirit is our teacher, instructor and doctor, the Father is our father and the Son is our savior. – Shathur Nov 4 '11 at 7:53
  • The call teacher is also forbade mathew 23:8 John the baptist is called teacher jonh 3:26 luke 3:12 Additional of that the Lord is the Only one Holy as we read Revealation 15:14 The Lord is the only Holy Paul call Holy to his bretheren christian hebrew3:1 acts 4:32 and many more Additional jesus is the only Son of God john 1:18 The christian called son of God 1 john 3:1 – Noel Ko Oct 6 '18 at 21:19

'Father' in this context refers to calling Abraham 'Father Abraham' ala John 8:39. Not calling any particular individual father.

They answered and said to him, “Our father is Abraham.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works of Abraham.

John 8:39 NABRE

Jesus statement is in connection with the Pharisees who take pride in exulting themselves. They call themselves Abraham's Children, take their place on the seat of Moses, make up new laws purely for self gratification.

The title 'Father' is in regards to the relationship a priest may have with his flock. It's not an honorific in that sense, any more than calling your own dad father is. Priests are Reverend, Bishops are Most Reverend. Priests don't assert their spiritual fatherhood for self gratification, but as a gift of self, the way natural parents do.

However, the commentary in the NABRE acknowledges a discrepancy in the historical practice, so make of it what you will.



protected by Community Oct 6 '18 at 21:37


Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
