1.  If a new hybrid 62-new mass missal is released, that doesn’t mean that the 62 missal is abrogated, unless the law specially says so.  When Paul VI issued the new mass, he didn’t abrogate the 62 missal so abrogation cannot be assumed; it must be clearly spelled out in the law.  

2.  Even if Pope Benedict put the new hybrid missal together, since he did not issue it under his papacy, then he did not “approve” it, formally and legally speaking.  When/If a new hybrid missal is issued, it will be approved by +Francis, because he’s the pope (in theory).  It doesn’t matter when the missal was put together, it matters when the law that issues the missal is put in force.  

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html
SUMMORUM PONTIFIcuм
 
"...the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."
 
"...For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."
 
"...There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.  In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture ...Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.  The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful.  Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).
Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.  Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF SUMMORUM PONTIFIcuм
 http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

"In the first place, there is the fear that the docuмent detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
This fear is unfounded.  In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.  The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration.  It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”.  Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.  At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.  Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level.  Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood..."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docuмents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html
INSTRUCTION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER SUMMORUM PONTIFIcuм
 
 2. With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.
 
7. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм was accompanied by a letter from the Holy Father to Bishops, with the same date as the Motu Proprio (7 July 2007). This letter gave further explanations regarding the appropriateness and the need for the Motu Proprio; it was a matter of overcoming a lacuna by providing new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962. Such norms were needed particularly on account of the fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy...
11. After having received the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.
 
25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal[9], according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.
26. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.

No, actually they know for a fact that Pope Benedict was/is a bad Pope, a  material heretic; unlike Pope Francis whom they think is an apostate and formal heretic.

You answered your own question. Look at the facts.  Which came first, JPIIs commission or the indults?  The commission did.  What does that mean?  It means that the commission decided BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED that the True Mass wasn’t outlawed.  

That means that the 62 missal wasn’t outlawed and the indults are legal trickery, trying to get people to “ask” for something that they already have the right to have.  The indults were accepted by everyone but Traditionalists because we know that Quo Primum is a higher law.  And since the commission ruled that Quo Primum is still law, and this was again confirmed in 2007 by +Benedict, then this is fact.  

What we disagree on is which missal is the True Missal.  For some reason (which you’ve yet to explain) you say the 62 missal is illegal, immoral and unusable.  You’ve yet to prove this with any facts.  The legal fact is that if you say that the 62 missal is illegal then you’d have to use Pius Xs missal.  This would be the last valid missal.  Is this your argument?

If so, then you’d have to say that John XXIII isn’t the pope because his 62 law abrogated Pius Xs missal and does not allow it to be used any longer.  

Further, earlier on in this debate, it was said that the 62 missal is wrong because Bugnini was involved.  But John XXIII is the one who suspended Bugnini and took him off the liturgical commission, so that argument doesn’t fly.  

I still don’t understand why you’re against the 62 missal, if you’re not a sedevacantist.

You keep treating the 62 missal as if there’s some MASSIVE changes in it which make it different from the previous one.  It’s not essentially different, that’s a fact.  

Also, if you think John XXIII was Pope, how do you explain the fact that he specifically says that Pius X’s missal and the Pius XII Holy Week changes are abrogated?  What missal does your priest use?  Why is this law invalid?  Please explain.  

Thirdly, was St Pius Xs missal the Tridentine missal?  Yes, it was the legal child of Quo Primum, which started the Tridentine rite.   Therefore, if the 62 missal replaced St Pius Xs missal, then the 62 missal is the valid successor of the Tridentine rite.  

After St. Pius X, little by little, the so called “Liturgical Movement” strayed from its original path, and came full circle to embrace the theories which it had been founded to combat. All the ideas of the anti-liturgical heresy — as Dom Guéranger called the liturgical theories of the 18th century — were now taken up again in the 1920s and 30s by liturgists like Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960) in Belgium and France, and by Dom Pius Parsch and Romano Guardini in Austria and Germany.

The “reformers” of the 1930s and 1940s introduced the “Dialogue Mass,” because of their “excessive emphasis on the active participation of the faithful in the liturgical functions.” In some cases — in scout camps, and other youth and student organizations — the innovators succeeded in introducing Mass in the vernacular, the celebration of Mass on a table facing the people, and even concelebration. Among the young priests who took a delight in liturgical experiments in Rome in 1933 was the chaplain of the Catholic youth movement, a certain Father Giovanni Battista Montini.

https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/liturgical-revolution/