In the climate of today's apostasy, Traditionalists would rather "err" on the safe side and refuse to intermingle Indult hosts with Traditional Hosts.
Although they may be "consecrated" by a fully ordained priest does not mean that priest had the intention of consecrating those hosts. For that matter, no one knows if any priest has the intent of Transubstantion. One must have faith that their priest is doing the right thing. Since many of the Novus Ordo priests regard themselves as entertainers, rather than acting in the person of Christ at Calvary, I would rather not take those chances.
So, instead, you follow a sect that has separated itself from the Pope.
Does that make sense to you?
With this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of "intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. (Leo XIII, "Apostolicae Curae", 33)
Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament. (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, III q. 64 a. 8)