On the one hand, it is certainly true that many ancient, post-persecution (i.e., Constantine) churches continued to feature altars without reredos (e.g., the Benedictine abbey in Fontgambault; the Dominicain couvent in Avrille built in the 11th century, etc.).  Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority (not all) of these churches predated the Protestant heresies regarding the Mass, and the response of the Baroque Church in the face of the Pretestant challenge was to double-down with even more magnificent altars complimented by reredos, baldacchinos, protected by rood screens, etc.

The differentiation between protestant and Catholic worship could be known at a glance from the distinct form of the altar or the table.

Now in the post-conciliar crisis, it is very strange that the FSSPX should begin blurring that distinction and inviting criticism by justifying a return to the "table altar," particularly at a time when the Protestant errors on the Mass have resurfaced within the Church, and at a time when many are worried about the consequences for the Fraternity in preparation for its ralliement to modernist Rome. 

Abbe Rutledge seems to be aware of the disturbance this is causing (he begs you to listen to his entire explanation, which is at times archeologistic, just as in the Novus Ordo), and even if the choice in the altar style is mere poor taste and/or imprudence -a verdict which is still to be determined- did he and FSSPX leadership really expect it would pass without a whimper, even amongst branded faithful, particularly when other recent Fraternity church building projects incorporate the same modernist elements (e.g., the table altar in the remodeled chapel in Econe; the monstrosity in Madrid which looks like an LSD-induced dream, etc.)?

I didn't care for that Crucifix + St. Dominic in the main chapel there, but that too could have easily been rectified.

Thanks for the beautiful images.

Anyone know why the magnificent full body size framed images of the Shroud of Turin were left hanging in the basement classroom/lecture hall and in the basement corridor at Winona when they moved the seminary to Virginia?  They had been ordered from https://www.shroud.com/obtain.htm#backlit  and from what I had been told years ago Br. Marcel had constructed the frames for them.

Crypto-modernist are worse than thieving Jєωs. 

At three minutes and fifty seconds, the narrator tells us that they have a free-standing altar because that was the tradition in the Church until around the eighth century.

So they are just being traditional using a Cramner's Table.

The Papal Altar at St. Peter's Basilica, consecrated by Pope Clement VIII on June 5, 1594.

There is definitely nothing wrong with a free-standing altar per se. However, it is very likely imprudent in this situation and indicative of the leanings of the SSPX.

I would definitely have preferred a grand altar to this. It looks too much like a table and it was a massive wasted opportunity.

Regarding the exorbitant amount of money the SSPX is wasting. It hurts to see because my local SSPX Mass is in a room which has no air once it gets filled.

To spend $50 million on anything while faithful all around the world have Masses in hotels and chairs is disgraceful.

Here are the two big issues I have with their big expenditures:

1) As you said, lots of chapels could use upgrades across the country.  What's worse is that there's been a history of SSPX diverting funds collected by people at chapels to their other projects, i.e. embezzling.  I know of several cases where the people at a chapel had major fundraising for a new church facility, but where the money evaporated and disappeared, and where decades later they still had no church after having raised hundreds of thousands, but then had to re-start their efforts.  SSPX have fine print everywhere that they own the chapels and can do what they want with the money, but this still is IMO morally THEFT, as the people had donated and raised the money for a specific purpose, and had slaved away in some cases for years at fund raisers, etc.  Alternatively, there are many areas where the money could be used to establish a Traditional Catholic presence.

2) Until the emergence of neo-SSPX, the Traditionalist concept was that this Crisis is temporary, and when it's over all those Catholic churches, seminaries, school buildings held by he Conciliars would be returned to Catholic use.  Each Catholic city has dozens upon dozens of churches that could not be rebuilt today for any price (many still intact due to their historical significance but with a Luther table placed in front of the main altar).  Each Catholic diocese has a very nice seminary facility.  This speaks to the fact that SSPX view this as a "New Normal" where the SSPX will be its own little order/group within the Conciliar Church and sees this as a parmanent arrangement.

This isn't about the Glory of God, but about someone's ego.

I also suspect that they started the seminary with the notion that once they got regularized, the seminarians would just start flocking to them in droves.