Question about pre-1911 Catholic Mass

[Bran_Stark]

In 1911, Pope Pius X issued a major reform of the liturgy, which included changing the orders of precedence so that celebrations of saints would not overshadow the Sunday office as often as they had.

Whilst browsing Google Books, I came across a article from 1913 discussing this reform. A curious excerpt follows:

For the laity at large, as already noted, the most interesting feature in the new programme is the privileged position now accorded to the Office and Mass of the ordinary Sundays of the year. Speaking generally, it may be said that in future the Sunday will only be displaced by feasts of high rank, one practical consequence of which will be that henceforth the epistle and Gospel read to the congregation from the pulpit will rarely be in disagreement with the epistle and Gospel of the Mass read at the altar, an anomaly which in recent years must often have jarred upon those possessing any sense of the liturgical fitness of things.

The anomaly does indeed seem jarring to me. But how did this odd situation come about in the first place? Does this mean that if the Nth Sunday after Pentecost was pushed away by the Feast of St. N, the priest would celebrate the first half of the Mass of St. N, preach a sermon about the readings for the Nth Sunday after Pentecost, and then resume the Mass of St. N? And was this required, or only permitted?

 

[Chatter163]

Yes, that is what was meant.

 

[Chatter163]

Does this mean that if the Nth Sunday after Pentecost was pushed away by the Feast of St. N, the priest would celebrate the first half of the Mass of St. N, preach a sermon about the readings for the Nth Sunday after Pentecost, and then resume the Mass of St. N? And was this required, or only permitted?

Yes, that is what it meant. Priests celebrated the Mass that the kalendar dictated, and many Sunday Masses were superseded by saints’ feasts. There was never any regulation requiring readings in the vernacular from the pulpit, as these were not actually part of the Mass.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Yes, that is what it meant. Priests celebrated the Mass that the kalendar dictated, and many Sunday Masses were superseded by saints’ feasts. There was never any regulation requiring readings in the vernacular from the pulpit, as these were not actually part of the Mass.

But what would motivate the priest to do this? I would think it would be simpler for him to preach on the Mass he was actually celebrating.