John, perhaps she thought the old alter looked out of place in the newly (modernised) refurbished church.
Quite possible, but if you compare the stepped upper portions of the two altars with the two pillars edging the images of the sacred heart and the chalice+radiance, they could have been manufactured from the same template. Not such a drastic change. The only real difference is that the old Altar stood against a wall, hence the need for only two front pillars.
The Cholet report seems to suggest that it was the parchment with the bone inside that the bell ringer found that was the main source of the priests wealth, the one that fell from the ceiling.
Is this not another anomoly, the bone and parchment, clearly indicative of an altar relic, falling from a ceiling?
The other pillar held 3 parchments, 2 of which were historical documents about the area as he states that it’s thanks to those he was able to write the history of the area. The third documents he says….
By "other pillar" I'm assuming he meant the partner to the visigoth pillar, the one that has never been found? Has anyone had sight of these 2 "historical documents" that enabled him to write his history?
Later on he goes on about the pillar again and says….
The figure 8 seems to play a major part at Rennes-le-Château, as we find it on the pillar of the old altar, on its lateral sides, combined in a curious way to form a double zigzag. Also on this pillar there is a square at the end of a curved stem containing 8 circles - could these be 8 barrels? There are also other inscriptions, unfortunately partly hidden by some cement.
He then adds ….
There are also some where the second pillar of the old altar is located.
The only way I can explain this comment is if he had examine the underneath of old altar table as this is where the second pillar would have "located"? If so, why didn't he comment on the discrepancy between "the" visigoth pillar design and that of the old altar? Curious, why emphasise the importance of the visigoth pillar and indicate where the second fitted, without commenting upon their anomolous nature?
The whole tenet of Cholets report concerns the discovery of a treasure by Sauniere. Does anyone know if Cholets descriptions match those of de Sede in any way?