Who said "indult"? Did I say "indult"? I know the "indult" which is acutually a lie in itself, because no "indult" is necessary for a priest to do what all the priests in history have done. The real "indult" should (properly) be for a priest to say the protestantized novus ordo, because it is the change, it is the deviation. It was never made mandatory by the pope, only illicitly by local bishops, for which they have no power to do. I did not say, nor did mean "indult."
When you go to a so-called indult, you are getting little of what you came for and a lot of what you came trying to avoid. You won't hear anything clearly critical of the rot that is being put out as "authority" from the chancery office, will you? You might want to avoid the chance that the communion hosts were leftover from novus ordo messes, but that's a given, because they USUALLY ARE. You will hear words from a priest who is very afraid of saying too much. I know several priests who have been so fed up with this living lie, that's right, living l-i-e, that they took their future by the horns and put it into God's hands, making a real leap of faith.
If anyone wants to join the debate, this is a hot topic, and there is now an ongoing exchange in the pages of the Remnant under the watch of Michael J. Matt. Anyone can weigh in...
We Catholics go to mass expecting to hear about Jesus. To hear otherwise would be highly inappropriate.
So, one has to go to an illicit SSPX Mass to "get what they came for"? How strange.
A "hot topic" at the Remnant? How many people are involved in this discussion? Five?
For all the lurkers, if you paid attention to nothing but FR, you would be under the illusion that there are hordes of Catholics just beating down doors for the Tridentine Latin Mass.
In truth, there aren't.