I find the timing very interesting. Prelature coming... rumor of drastic changes to the missal... E.D. communities in the SSPX corral or else...temporary exemption for the SSPX to keep the current 1962 missal and then...Benedict, the author of Summorum Pontificuм returns... revokes it and voila! No one can complain that it was done by Francis and the new missal is accepted by conservatives! My thought FWIW.

Francis and Benedict have been in perfect agreement from the beginning as AB Ganswein has been saying.

In his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, published in 2000, Ratzinger made it clear that two rites are too difficult to manage therefore eventually they would have to be merged into one. Summorum Pontificuм is the means to that end. It authorized all the changes that are coming to the 1962 missal while still calling it the "1962" missal. Once that missal is promulgated, the previous (in use now) would have to be abrogated or it would defeat the purpose.

According to the announcement by Una Voce Malta, ONLY the SSPX Prelature will be given a temporary exemption to keep the current one. Any indult community that want the current one would have to go under the SSPX, those who don't will have to use the new BUT when the SSPX exemption expires, the new version will be the only one in use.

I should mention that shortly after Benedict was elected, he attended the (2005 or 2006) CELAM Conference (Conference of Latin American and the Caribean Bishops)  in the city of Aparecida, Brazil. At that conference, the "Aparecida Docuмent" was concocted with Bergoglio as the most valuable contributor and the reason he was quickly elected. In 2007, 2 weeks before Summorum Pontificuм was released, Benedict gave the Aparecida Docuмent it's final approval  (the link below starts with Benedict's Letter). Why is this important? Because five days after the last conclave, Francis announced that the "Aparecida Docuмent" (and another I forgot) were the "footprint of his papacy". This was known from a letter sent by Francis to the CELAM bishops. "The New Evangelization" (new religion) is based on those two docuмents.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9XFGc_BZfpPcmNHUkR1Nm8xQjg/edit

Two months before his resignation, The Vatican Insider quoted Benedict stating: "This is the end of the old Church and the beginning of the new". Then came his last talk to all the priests of the Diocese of Rome known as 'The Real Council vs. the Virtual Council' meaning, they were going to witness now what VII really intended.

The article linked below from 6/29/2016 titled Ratzinger bendice la "revolución Bergoglio", ("Ratzinger Blesses Francis' revolution) dispels any idea they are not like minded. Lastly, as AB Ganswein has repeatedly stated, "The only  difference between "the two popes" is ONLY in style.

http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/elbaronrampante.php/2016/06/29/ratzinger-bendice-la-revolucion-bergogli

That source seems off. The Pope is the spiritual leader of over a billion people -- if there was word that he was thinking of resigning, it would be everywhere.

If you look on YouTube, you can see various papal events. Most of them get very, very generous coverage by the media. Francis resigning would be no different.

The sourse says he announced it to Benedict during his visit at Christmas. That it will be announced in the coming weeks but won't take effect until 2020.
Francis has been outspoken about his retirement for a couple of years. But we'll have to wait and see. 

Can popes do this? I just feels it’s odd.

You are not alone. Ask PAX. IF the pope "can" change a 1700+ year old prayer and change the ecclesiastical tradition of only martyrs named in the canon, something Leo XIII would not dare touch ...he can do anything!  

IF the pope "can" change a 1700+ year old prayer and change the ecclesiastical tradition of only martyrs named in the canon, something Leo XIII would not dare touch ...he can do anything!  

1.  The canon was codified by Pope Gregory the Great in the 600s, so the canon is not 1,700 years old but only 1,400.
2.  The canon contains names of martyrs, which did not come from Christ (because the martyrs weren't alive when Christ said the first Mass) but from the pope.
3.  What one pope can add, another can subtract.  The papacy has the power to "bind and loose".  A bad pope can do bad things; a bad pope is a punishment for sins.
4.  The resignation of popes and the canon law of this situation is highly technical and not at all comparable to the liturgy.  I have no idea.
5.  Most everything the modernists do is odd, because they aren't orthodox and they hate catholicism.  But that doesn't mean they can't do such things.  They spend all their time reading the fine print and looking for loopholes with which to create confusion and doubt, because God will not allow them to do any lasting damage.  All of the changes of the last 100 years will be rectified in the future and the glories of the Church will return soon enough.  1,960 years of orthodoxy vs 50 years of confusion.  Have patience!  God will not be mocked forever!

1.  The canon was codified by Pope Gregory the Great in the 600s, so the canon is not 1,700 years old but only 1,400.
2.  The canon contains names of martyrs, which did not come from Christ (because the martyrs weren't alive when Christ said the first Mass) but from the pope.
3.  What one pope can add, another can subtract.  The papacy has the power to "bind and loose".  A bad pope can do bad things; a bad pope is a punishment for sins.
4.  The resignation of popes and the canon law of this situation is highly technical and not at all comparable to the liturgy.  I have no idea.

I was talking about the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jєωs being 1700+ years old, according to +Fellay.
As far as the apostolic tradition (of only martyrs named in the canon) , you can do your own search. Drew is working on a reply. May I suggest you give it a thought?

That's fine.  Don't want to derail this thread.  My bad.