Thank you again for taking the time.
It seems to me that the author of Hebrews called this the “Order of Melchizedek.” You are claiming that the Tradition of the Catholic Church clarifies that “Order of Melchizedek” is a poetic devise. There is only the priesthood of Christ. Calling it the “Melchizedek Priesthood” like LDS do is not in alignment with Catholic Tradition. Calling it the “Order of Melchizedek” like the author of Hebrews does is poetic language that obscures truth (like calling a bottle opener a church key) and is not in alignment with Catholic Tradition.
Am I understanding so far?
When you say “Melchizedek didn’t hold Christ’s priesthood” are you saying that there are “historical facts” and there are Biblical teachings for the purpose of communicating God’s truth. And that if a historian could gather data concerning Melchizedek, said historian would determine that he either didn’t exist or didn’t hold a priesthood different from the Pagan priesthood of his day. The Old Testament (and a HUGE body of ancient Jewish literature) has romanticized a character Melchizedek and the author of Hebrews was looking for a way to explain the person of Christ that Jews would relate to SO he latched onto this mythical figure Melchizedek? The truth is the Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was the priest and the sacrifice of the New Covenant and the author of Hebrews was inspired to give a romanticized account that would help Jews recognize this truth.
Is that what you mean?
I am not sure I would choose to go there, but I want to understand what you are saying. I do not believe that the earth and mankind was created in six 24 hour periods, so there is some allegory in the Bible in my view.