Perhaps I indeed do you an injustice... it's quite possible after all, since I don't know you. I'm glad your finally settling on Perillos, as opposed to earlier claims, has proven successful for you.
I appreciate that, Roger. The earlier claims have proven just as successful. Despite the hair-trigger derision from several armchair internet experts, the authorities who mattered (those who actually examine documentation as part of their vetting processes as opposed to those who say they have better things to do with their time) were entirely satisfied. All the documentation issued to me has the full historical rendition of my surname - Foix-Carmain de Périllos - with heraldic quarterings for Foix, Carmain, Périllos, and Isle-Jourdain on the concession-of-arms. And no conflict of interest was determined vis-a-vis the rights of the Arróspide family who petitioned for (1917) and received a grant for (1927) the title "Vizconde de Perellós" as they are not Périllos descendants, don't make use of the surname, and don't have an hereditary right to the heraldic arms.
By the way, I'm not in any way a dues paying member of the Societe Perillos, let alone a member of anything at all resembling that.
I stand corrected, my apologies.
I'll have to point out as diplomatically as possible, however, that if you've spent 26 years studying such things, your focus must have been very much elsewhere than on penitent confraternities, their history (early history, not those pious legends that circulate today) and I must recommend that you research the Garduna further, as well as its ties to a vast network of penitent groups (including in Italy).
Roger, if you think there is something I ought to consider, something I have missed or overlooked, please do me the favor of being specific and offering sources where I can have a look.
I think you'll be chuffed to learn of the "main-mise" by the crown of Mallorca on the largest organizations of penitents at a time when putative ancestors of yours were quite present in an advisory capacity to that court.
Then I would ask you to be specific and point me in the right direction where I may see for myself what you are seeing.
I won't do you the injustice of pretending that you didn't know that most - if not all - chapters of La Sanch (and La Sang, as well) have chaplains who are naturally ordained priests, and I'll assume you were being disingenuous for some as yet unknown reason.
Any and all such religious confraternities were served by chaplains of the religious orders sponsoring lay confraternities - typically based in the actual parish church from whence the lay confraternity is chartered. Was there a chapter of La Sanch based at Rennes-le-Chateau? Was the Perpignan chapter the first to be founded?
Speaking of unknown reasons, I'm not quite clear on what interests you with regard to the RLC story and its few facts surrounded with myth injected by any number of co-opting esoteric and masonic sects?
Dispelling the myths, actually.
Oh... masonic sects, that brings up another thing... While I don't believe that Sauniere was actually a member of any masonic organization, it's quite Psmithian to issue a blanket statement to the effect that no priest could have been a member of a masonic lodge in XIXth century France.
"Psmithian" - ouch. Well, perhaps someone has to keep the blanket smears up, given that Psmith will be out of commission for awhile.
The mainstream movements of masonry were indeed generally inclined "a bouffer du cure", but any number of smaller yet quite active organizations claiming for themselves a masonic heritage were so diverse as to comprise some rather virulent monarchists and some eye-poppingly heretical Catholics.
Emphasis here on heretical
(or perhaps lapsed) Catholics, and monarchists of the Orléaniste faction which had a natural political disposition to organized Freemasonry (the latter having helped to instigate the downfall of Charles X and his replacement on the throne by Louis-Philippe d'Orléans in 1830, as well as the fomenting the succession crises in Spain in 1833 and Portugal in 1831-34).
Should you wish to research some known rosters of French lodges from that period, you'll find it not uncommon to see priests, bishops, etc... among the members and - in some cases - among the officers.
Rosters which I am fairly confident would not have been published or made publically known, n'est-ce pas? How would we know who among them, if any, held traditionalist beliefs versus those who were secret apostates?
But again, I doubt this has much to do with Sauniere or RLC, despite the rather too often repeated claim (by the RLC research fringe, of course) that his church presents "all the elements of a masonic temple". As I'm sure you know, but too many here apparently don't, most symbols are common to many traditions and their meaning will depend on who is using them and at what time.
On that point I wholeheartedly agree.