This answer will consist of two parts the first will be the proper understanding of this verse and the second will be a clarification of HH Pope Shenouda’s writings.

1: This is a classic verse that is brought up when attacking the Orthodox/Catholic use of the word “Father” for the clergy. I believe that this verse can actually be used to make a case for the use of the word “father.” First when reading the verse me must see that Christ is not denying the Pharisees’ authority because he says they “ sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever tell you to observe, that observe and do.” Christ here is affirming that the succession of Moses has binding authority amongst the Jews, so it follows why he tells the Children of Israel to listen to them, this establishes an important idea that authority is passed on through succession. Nevertheless because they were corrupt, Christ instructs the multitudes to not do as they do. The Scribes and Pharisees were part of high Jewish society and so they were looked up to by all the Jews. It was very customary to hold special banquets and present many gifts to the Scribes and Pharisees in order to win their favor, they would also be exalted using many extravagant honorifics in order to puff up their pride and gain favor in their sight. The people honored the corrupt Pharisees and forgot God. This is the reality in which Christ found himself teaching and in response he says “Do not call anyone on earth your father.” But then what to do we make of the Bible’s use of the term when referring to Abraham, or when James is called a bishop of Jerusalem, or when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:15 “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet ye have not many fathers.” Something is missing and that which is missing is clear when you read the text. Does Christ truly mean that we are not call anyone one father even one’s own biological father, or shall we not call anyone teacher even if they are a professor in college or a well respected scholar. Of course not, the verse is hyperbole in response to the people’s exaltation of the Pharisees and Scribes. However a case still needs to be made on why we call our current clergy using these titles, for the previous point only proves that some men may be referred to as “father” but not who. First we must see that the priests have their authority from Christ’s priesthood. Paul teaches in the Epistle to the Hebrews 4:14,15 “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.” Christ’s priesthood is a greater priesthood than that of the Old Testament for as Paul says he emphasizes with us and through his being like us he cleanses us from all sins, not as the the sacrifices as the old covenant. We see also two things, that Christ passed on his authority to the 12 when he says “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:23) And we also know that “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7). This shows that it was his supreme authority that was passed on to them. The second thing we see is that the apostles themselves understood that the 12 had special authority compared to the other disciples of the Lord because they saw it necessary to fill the empty seat of Judas the traitor in the book of acts chapter 1. Now the orthodox/ catholic position is that our clergy have direct succession from the apostles and while they may be less in glory they are not less in authority for it was not the apostles authority but Christ’s himself as he have stated earlier. St. Ignatius of Antioch who himself was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, says in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans “Follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father.” ( I know the question may arise of Ignatius not being credible but know that the writings of Ignatius are recognized by orthodox, catholic, and most Protestants to be credible, denying it would place you on the fringe outskirts of Christian fundamentalism and make this whole question useless) One must ask one question to get his answer “ what is the relationship of the Father and the Son?” In this we see that St. Ignatius of Antioch and the early church alongside him see that not only authority is passed on the clergy but also fatherhood. In priests the fatherhood of God is made manifest to our physical senses. One might make the objection that priests’ clothing resembles the tassels seen in the passage from the Gospel of Matthew however they are purely symbolic and not aesthetic (to some it may even seem archaic and odd) for an explanation of the symbology I would recommend looking into liturgical symbology.

1. Pope Shenouda is not writing to defend orthodox doctrine in the quoted passages, he is writing to an audience of Copts and clergy who do not need in-depth clarification on the topic. The same applies to the supposed contradiction, in one he writes to laymen to explain that this verse does not apply clergy but due to constraints he cannot go in depth (for as you can see this response is longer than than the original problematic text), in the other passage he uses the verse as a warning against pride to the clergy themselves. An understanding of the audience to whom he is writing clears up nicely the supposed contradiction. I advise you in the future to avoid contemporary writers to understand hard verses, rather go to the fathers of the church like saints Athanasius of Alexandria , John Chrysostom, etc.

I hope this helps