This chapel in Spain is modern, ugly and luciferian.  It doesn’t say traditional Catholic to me.

https://tinyurl.com/2bcc48mf

I remember being horrified when I saw this.  Now, unfortunately, I just conclude 'what a joke'.  Those statues look no less modernist that the 'crucifix' outside the concrete Fatima banjo chapel.
   

In my opinion...  If they are going to have a "free-standing" altar it should at least have the three altar shelf's on it.  This is where the candles and flowers are usually placed for a high Mass.  Usually an altar with tiers on it helped to distinguish between an altar for a high Mass or a low Mass.  Traditional chapels often had more simple side altars for several priests to offer their morning low Masses at the same time and the high altar was for the sung Masses.

To my knowledge there is no such distinction for high Mass or low Mass. I stand to be corrected.

To my knowledge there is no such distinction for high Mass or low Mass. I stand to be corrected.

Irrelevant.  This excerpt from Mediator Dei ends the whole conversation: 

"62. ...Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform..."

It remains only for the Fraternity to humble itself, and resume sentire cuм ecclesia.

Irrelevant.  This excerpt from Mediator Dei ends the whole conversation:

"62. ...Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform..."

It remains only for the Fraternity to humble itself, and resume sentire cuм ecclesia.

But that altar doesn't look like a primitive tableform. A primitive table altar will be like these pictures.







https://www.liturgicalartsjournal.com/2021/11/the-history-and-forms-of-christian.html

But that altar doesn't look like a primitive tableform. A primitive table altar will be like these pictures.







https://www.liturgicalartsjournal.com/2021/11/the-history-and-forms-of-christian.html

How is the altar proposed at the Immaculate any differnt than the pics you have posted (particularly the one in the middle, which looks to be precisely what is going to be installed)?

How is the altar proposed at the Immaculate any differnt than the pics you have posted (particularly the one in the middle, which looks to be precisely what is going to be installed)?

High altar at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception



High altar at Westminster Cathedral


High altar at St. Patrick's Cathedral

The problem with the SSPX in these matters is not that there are different legitimate tastes in liturgical style (Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassical), but that they create wholly modern designs under the guise of tradition and pretend that this innovation is a legitimate taste rooted in history. We often call liberal, heterodox Catholics "cafeteria Catholics"; with good reason, many of the SSPX leadership reveal themselves to be "cafeteria Traditionalists." (Pius XII in Mediator Dei condemned this as the error of antiquarianism). This altar is a perfect example of this picking and choosing.

The SSPX time and again has shown an uncritical acceptance of the principles of the Liturgical Movement, the same movement that, when left unchecked, led us straight into the Novus Ordo. The priests in Europe tend to be better rounded since they are still surrounded by ancient churches that have the full variety of styles. 

The problem isn't so much the altar, which Father correctly notes is the normal form found in the ancient Roman basilicas. It is commendable that we make our Roman churches look Roman. People here are focused so much on the shape, look, and placement of the altar, but they do not realize that these are not so much the core of the issue.

Instead Father neglects a very important element that always accompanies the altar in those same basilicas: the baldacchino (or ciborium). He even makes it seem that the baldachin is not a traditional element of Roman altar design when he says at 3:45: "The free-standing altar was the norm for Catholic Churches until about the 8th century when other elements of altar design came in, and we saw at that time some more vertical elements being attached to the back of the altar..."

No, in fact as soon as the Christians moved from the catacombs to the newly consecrated Roman temples and newly built Catholic churches, they constructed the ciborium over the high altar, either with solid materials or precious cloth or both. This altar was placed over the tomb of a martyr and therefore elevated in a special manner. This was one of the earliest, uniquely Catholic developments to Roman sacred architecture. Its purpose was obvious: to draw attention to the most sacred part of the church, to bestow an amazing dignity and prominence to the altar, and to provide a cover fitting of royalty to the Holy Sacrifice and Blessed Sacrament.

St Germanus stated this explicitly in the 700s: The ciborium represents the place of crucifixion, the burial, and the resurrection of Christ. It corresponds to the ark of the covenant and the Holy of Holies.

But when the Liturgical Movement did away with the baldachin as a "superfluous" element of the altar (although some in the movement attempted to revive the element as important), what did the Novus Ordo discover? The altar lost its vertical dimension! The loss of visual verticality simultaneously accompanied the flattening of its theology, from the vertical to the horizontal. This distorted the altar into a mere table, architecturally and theologically.

Yet one finds in the most prestigious of even the Novus Ordo churches and in newer projects designed by those great classical-revival architects, such as Duncan Stroik, the return of the ciborium! When the fence was removed, the modernists then remembered why it had been placed there. Tradition solved problems. Remove the traditional solution, and the problem will almost immediately return.

Fr Rutledge knows that the vertical element is necessary. So how was the verticality achieved? He elaborates at 7:40 and on:

1. Green marble apsial colonnade
2. Green elements on the sanctuary floor will highlight the columns
3. The three apsial murals (partly blocked by the columns), with the central featuring the paschal lamb with gold leafing

At 8:34 he boasts, instead of a reredos or baldachin, "We have something even more impressive... with an 8 column colonnade, with artwork spanning the entire back of the sanctuary, with up to 30 vertical feet of artwork."

Yes, so impressive that it fits right in with the trend of Novus Ordo architectural innovation, completely cut off from actual tradition but claiming to be a return to a "purer historical practice." So impressive that even the more conservative elements of the Novus Ordo don't do that anymore but have reinstated some form of ciborium in their newest, best churches. Notice those Roman basilicas: yes, they have apsial murals from floor to ceiling AND a glorious baldacchino! They did not care if the precious wall art would be blocked. The focus is not the mural but the altar! But the SSPX knows better. They are, after all, the true guardians of tradition.

A second problem that this new sanctuary will have, since it has insisted on a free-standing altar, is having proper space for the liturgical ceremonials. In fact, this is why the altars were moved to the back of the apse--to make more space for the more solemn liturgies. There is hardly 10 feet of space between the bottom steps of the altar to the steps leading to the railing and probably 8 feet or less to the left and right of the altar before hitting the colonnade. Think of the crammed Pontifical Masses in a church that is so large, with an altar that is as large as the one in Santa Maria Maggiore, yet no space for the actual liturgy!

And what of the liturgical choir, given there is only 10 feet between the altar and steps? They created the ingeniously innovative solution of placing the choir "stalls" in the side chapels, which open up into the sanctuary, another unique architectural form that I'm positive the SSPX historians can point to the best Roman precedents.

But unfortunately, the Society is not known for its beautiful liturgy. Because of their missionary spirit, they are a continuation of the Jesuits when it comes to liturgy. Hopefully they do not end up like the latter. At least the old Jesuits knew how to build proper churches! And don't get me started on the murals!

All of these issues, and more, in a church that they apparently spent countless hours--with many brilliant minds, they assure us--thinking over every detail. Perhaps this is how the committee conversation went:

"Here is another classic problem. How do we solve it? Should we do what the Church has always done when faced with the same problems? Of course not! Let's create something completely new and claim it is traditional and even more fitting and beautiful! And if anyone questions us, they are ignorant. Clearly they did not watch the informational video in its entirety, where we attempt to speak down to their level of stupidity!"

canis hit the nail on the head with regard to the difference, that the Traditional Roman versions emphasize the verticality.  They draw the eye up toward Heaven, where you can almost picture or visualize God up there in Heaven viewing and accepting the Sacrifice below.  It raises the eye to Heaven above the altar, whereas the Immaculate one draw the eye down toward it.  THAT is the difference between the Modernist table and the Traditional styles.  St. Peregrine's version does have the baldachin, but it most certainly does not have the effect of raising the eyes upward toward Heaven, where God is receiving the sacrifice.  It just looks like a simple cover.  It looks like a roof on a shed or an awning hanging over a patio, but does not evoke the sense that God is there in the Heaven above looking down upon and receiving the Sacrifice.

But then trento here thinks that Father Robinson's books are perfectl Catholics ... so I think he's disqualified as a competent judge of Modernism.  I really wish you wouldn't call yourself "trento," since the Fathers at Trent would condemn many of your posts defending Father Robinson as heretical.