The alchemical sulfur is not quite the same thing as the yellow powder, and confusing the two makes nonsense of the texts.
In the sulfur-mercury theory, which reached Latin Europe from Arabic sources and was current from the twelfth century, all metals were held to be composed of two principles: a sulfurous principle responsible for combustibility, colour and fixity, and a mercurial principle responsible for fusibility, lustre and volatility. Different proportions and purities of the two accounted for the differences between lead and gold. This was a real theory doing real explanatory work, and the transmutation project follows from it directly. If gold and lead differ only in the proportion and refinement of two constituents, then adjusting the proportion ought to convert one into the other.
Paracelsus added a third principle, salt, standing for solidity and incombustibility, in the early sixteenth century, giving the tria prima. In his medical writing the three become the basis of an entire physiology.
The crucial point is that philosophical sulfur was not ordinary brimstone, and the texts say so repeatedly. It was the quality of combustibility considered as a substance. Ordinary sulfur was its most obvious embodiment and was used as such in the laboratory, which is why the same word and the same mark, a triangle set above a cross, served for both.
None of the seven planetary correspondences applies to sulfur, because it was not one of the seven metals. Its place in the tradition is of a different kind, and arguably a more fundamental one, since the metals themselves were held to be made out of it.