SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

IN PHILIPPINES HISTORY

TO: MA. NELSEE CASINILLAS

FROM:AIRA G. CALDERON
Introduction of the Controversy between Limasawa and Masao/Butuan

In 1872, A monument to commemorate the site of first mass on the Philippines was
erected in Butuan. In 1953, The people in Butuan asked the Philippine Historical
Committee to rehabilitate the monument or place a marker on the site. On the basis of
this objection the monument was re erected but the marble slab stating it was the site of
first mass was removed. Zaide identified Masao in Butuan as the location of the first
mass. The basis Zaide’s claim is the diary of Antonio Pigafetta, chronicle of Magellan’s
voyage Jaime de Veyra stated that the first mass was celebrated in Limawasa not in
Butuan. Historian Pablo Pastells stating by the footnote to Francisco Colin’s Labor
Evangelica that Magellan did not go to Butuan but form Limasawa to Cebu. Francisco
Albo ( pilot of Magellan’s flagship does not mention the first mass but he writes that they
erected a cross on a mountain which overlooked three islands the west and the
southwest.James Robertson agreed with Pastells in a footnote that “Mazua” was
actually Limasawa. In the authentic account of Pigafetta, the port was not in Butuan but
an island named Mazua ( Masawa). Father Bernard studied all the Pigafetta’s maps,
which place in Mazau off the southern tip of the larger island of Leyte., a check with the
modern maps will show that this jibes with Limasawa and not Masao or Butuan.

Sides and/ or Evidences of the Controversy

THE SITE FIRST MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Located at the Southern Leyte * a popularly known as the birthplace of the Church in
the Philippines. *Holy First Mass marked the birth of Roman Catholicism in the
Philippines.

EVIDENCE OF LIMASAWA 4. Confirmatory evidence from the

1.The evidence of Albo’s Log-Book Legazpi expedition.
2. The Evidence of Pigafetta EVIDENCE OF MASAO
a) Pigafetta’s testimony regarding the 1. The name of the Place
route; 2. The route og Homonhon
b)The evidence of Pigafetta’s map 3. The latitude Position
c)The two native kings 4. The Geographical Position
d) The seven days at “Mazaua” a) The bonfire
e)An argument from omission b) The balanghai
3. Summary of the evidence of Albo and c) House
Pigafetta. d) Abundance of gold
e) A development statement

THE STAND
.

Positive Stand

Butuanons are not indifferent people. Being born and grew up in the place, I can
attest that they deal people either in hospitality or hostility. They are generally good
friends, but can be fierce enemies. But for reasons that are unknown to me, just like
most of our Filipino ancestors, they do not bother much about history except today.
They had been indifferent on the issue for a long time. On the contrary, Limasawans
may be indifferent, but certainly not on the first mass. They saw the importance of the
event and they did not take it for granted. Back up by the works of historians with
unquestionable reputation like James Alexander Robertson and Emma Blair, including
Pastells, a Jesuit missionary in Caraga, they were the first ones to bring this issue to the
Congress of the Republic of the Philippines. The act of seeking for a resolution in the
congress on the issue of the first mass ceases all speculations that such issue is devoid
of any significance. A Christian nation cares for the first mass must naturally be the
case. It has become no longer be a mere ecclesiastical event but also with national
import. They continue to monumentalize it by building a commemorative site of the first
mass in their place. The subsequent publications of history textbooks mentioning
Limasawa to be the site of the first mass continuously cemented Limasawa’s claim.
And these were easily done with great success uncontestly so far. They vigilantly guard
their claim not wanting of scholarly research endeavor that recourse to the reliable
pages of historical text against rival claimant like the Butuanons. And so far, twice they
have proven to be still successful in so far as NHI is concern which reinforces their
belief of not giving it up easily. The first mass must had been a pearl of great price that
they tenaciously refuse to let it go. The message is very clear: The first mass is
important and it should not be taken for granted. Take note it is the Limasawans making
this clear to the whole country, not the Butuanons. But certainly this is the point that
both Limasawans and Butuanons agree. The former twice won the contest, the
message that reaches to the Butuanons was not defeat, rather a powerful realization
that the issue at stake is not an insignificant matter.
By then, it became a big issue; and it still took a decade for the Butuanons to
realize that it was. When apparently it was settle in Limasawa, Butuanons became so
restless upon realizing that they had been stripped off from such historical honor.
Indeed, it was because of the Limasawan’s that they were challenged to thoroughly
investigate history by their own. Butuanons felt they had been screwed up and so they
rose to the challenge by doing their homework. It was however sad that many of them
looked at the Limasawans as simply an opponent to the contest, not as an eye-opener
from their great slumber. Thus, Butuan owes Limasawa. This is one consideration that
Butuanons should not miss to see.
Negative Stand

In the anthologies of historical researches that deal with the first mass issue,
there is no mention of a single Butuanon participating in the enterprise before the
Limasawa’s claim. It is not altogether historically accurate to think that Butuan is giving
so much a fuss on the first mass; on the contrary, they were guiltier on ignoring the
issue for a long time and that they realized their being remiss almost too late. No one
in Butuan dare to write their own golden history and therefore other people wrote it for
them. Here, we have the nutshell of the problem because history, no matter how
accurate it may, is always written from the perspective of the writer, and therefore
certain elements of his/her worldviews must be considered in reading the text as Paul
Ricoeur reminds us. Objectivity is always the problem in writing the text for one
important thing to be considered is the fact that almost all historians are researchers,
not eye-witnesses. If there are irreconcilable differences of the accounts of the
chroniclers in the past who happened to be the immediate witnesses of the same event,
how much more can we expect for the historians of today five hundred years after? The
repercussion is clear, historians are heavily at the mercy of the level of accuracy to the
textual account they are reading. Whether or not we like it, history is an interpretation of
the past, not just an accurate objective data of dates, places, and events of the past.
Thus, what is at stake is the question, who are in the best position to write history?
This is crucial because, to my mind, had Butuanons wrote their own history, it
could have been much fairer description of our past and that their work would naturally
contain the pride of the place. Whether or not it was a deliberate act, in hindsight,
Butuan ignores the first mass. It was their silence, not their noise that leads them into
their own demise. I do not think Butuanons have the right to complain against historical
inaccuracies by calling it “deliberate distortions” if it could have been better written by
themselves.
Fortunately, in recent years this attitude has dramatically changed. Butuan has
already realized its sin of omission. There is now a growing awareness of the need to
define ourselves by taking a clearer look at the past. And we people from Butuan must
be the ones to do the task. Today, we have dedicated local historians who take the task
of trying to caricature labyrinth scheme of Butuan’s past. In making up their mistake,
they are so zealous that some people are already agitated by their acting like gadflies to
incessantly claim for the first mass. Consequently when some people get feed up, And
so dispense its relevance.
Well, that’s precisely the problem as we have just pointed out. For hundreds of
years the first mass was no big deal to Butuanons. They were not the first ones to
raise the importance of this issue. In my elementary years, history teachers in Butuan
have no trouble at all teaching us that the first mass was held in Limasawa, Southern
Leyte. Obviously, Butuan accepted it. Butuan was so remiss that even her own
representative to the lower house, Cong. Manuel Sanchez, voted the Congressional
resolution in favor of Limasawa. Such an act of Butuan solon came only as a
secondary reason to bring down the Butuan proponents of their claim. The primary
reason was that the first mass issue was not even popular among Butuanons then. It
was not the history teachers but the local historians, who are not even teachers nor
historians in a real sense, and in most cases at their own personal expense, who
initiated the challenge of Limasawa’s claim. Many of them were engineers, seamen,
businessmen, religious, civil employees, etc. The only thing that common for them is
that they were all Butuanons and that they care about as one. To this moment when
local historians are publishing their own researches on the issue and even right now
when I am writing this article, I am still imagining that Elementary and High School
students are listening to their teachers telling them about the first mass that was held in
Limasawa. Until now I am still wondering how many classroom teachers fail to go
beyond their textbooks in teaching their students. Teachers should realize that history
courses are critical disciplines not a fundamentalist textual subservience. All we have to
remember is that history teaches us the lessons of intellectual freedom not of political
bondage; students must be critical not just to the text but even to those facts presented
to them in the class. On the other hand, it can be said in some sense, that if Butuan
realizes importance of the first mass, what were the factors which triggered them in the
first place? At this juncture, we must turn to the Limasawans 1 who started the claim
which in the process provokes Butuan’s reaction.

1
 But certainly, the former first lady has made her point; we need to discuss
important matters. We must focus to urgent and relevant issues. Obviously the first
mass is not on her list. If we take up Ricoeur’s advice, we must ask the question, who
are those people in the best position to deal professionally the issue. That brings us
back to the idea of credibility even if we forego the question of certainty. I repeat, it is
credibility, not political status quo that must be counted. This very sad because when
historical issues are submitted to the judgments of incompetent politicians, issues are
not just muddled, it also show how culturally and intellectually confused we are.
I should agree that first mass is not an important and urgent issue to resolve by
our country. The only thing which I do not understand is that if the first mass is to be
taken as celebrated in Limasawa, Leyte, it is a big issue that deserved to be brought to
the Congress and to be mentioned in all history textbooks so that every single student
of this country must be informed about it; if it is to be taken in Butuan, then let us not
talk about it because it is not the pressing issue for the Filipino people and therefore,
insignificant. To say that the first mass is both significant and insignificant defies the
most fundamental principles of logic, the principle of contradiction. Common sense tells
us that they cannot not be both true at the same. Who will categorize the first mass
issue or how is it to be categorized whether it is a significant issue or not is still to be
resolved. In our country even today, it is not uncommon to experience issues being
turned down and silenced by the employment of political power and influence by
persons of status quo leaving no room for rational discourse among equal proponents of
the divide that will pave the way for the truth to come out. We have so many political
and social issues which were dealt with along this line. Sabi nila, ang Filipino ay
magaling sa umpisa, walang natatapos. It has become a culture that politics rules over
reason. Very unfortunately that this is how we do it, parati dinadaan sa gulang.
Certainly, this is not a good indicator for a civilized society.
That was Butuan’s first set back. Their greatest predicament is based on the fact
that they were not allowed to lay down the merits of their position. The products of their
painstaking researches were doomed only to be kept by themselves and may be for
later generations. They did not loss; they were not allowed to fight. Sometimes this is
more painful than lossing. So Butuan historians packed up their research stuff went
home with their luggage loaded with heavy hearts from such an excruciating humiliation.
But it was not a set back at all. The spirit of their great forefathers “ Calaganon”
simply shows off naturally. Di gyud papild, madyaw gani. There was no sign of slowing
down research. It was a blessing in disguise to leave the issue unsettled so that
Butuanons will never give up their struggle and continue their painstaking search for the
forgotten past which in fact turned out to be very much well paid not by money but by
facts and very surprising discoveries that even boast the Butuanon pride beyond their
expectations. Butuan became not just convinced that they were right of the first mass;
they also discovered facts of their past far greater cause to be proud of our place.

Final Stand

Finally, I would like to make a bold claim. Given all the preponderance of historical
evidences, there is no doubt to my mind that if that mass which was celebrated in
Mazzau in March 21, 1521 is to be taken as the first mass in the Philippines, then
Butuan deserves the claim. Butuan has already most of these evidences at hand; they
are just waiting to be heard. So far, there is not much of a problem at this point.
However, aware of the Pangasinan’s claim of the first mass in the 13 th century, then that
certainly muddles the whole issue. And when an issue is muddled, its significance
would most likely diminish. I think Butuan has already outgrown its pursuits for
evidence, they must have to established that the issue is important, at least important
for us Roman Catholics and Butuanons, and therefore worth a national attention.
Since I am convinced that Butuan has the claim of the first mass, I suppose this
is not really the real challenge that we Butuanons have to face. With utmost emphasis,
I must give so much insight with the issue of importance. Perhaps we must consider
the fact that there are a lot of Filipinos even among those coming from stakeholder
places were even interested on the issue simply because importance is grossly
overlooked.
 Today, while the Butuan has not yet able successfully to convince the whole
country, it is noteworthy to be aware that even among the clergy of Butuan, there are
still skeptical about the claim. One clergy expressed his hard-shell comments, “The fact
was that the first mass happened in Limasawa….even if we bang our heads on the wall,
we break our heads not the wall.” Such a strong word requires shrewdness. He was
wise enough not to be interested to hear in detail the facts and evidences that favor
Butuan for they will certainly break his head. I was taking my Tuesday lunch at the
Cathedral while I was reading the third draft of Butuan’s position paper prepared by
Greg Hontiveros to be submitted to the NHI when a fellow priest taunted me and said,
what’s the significance of the first mass? I was taken aback and replied with the mixture
of impatience and pride, the first mass is important because it is a mass.
To me the greatest importance of the first mass is not just because it happen in
Butuan. I do not think that is essentially what we are fighting. Neither it was because a
religious event. But still even if we remove the religious significance of the first which, of
course, carries Christian prejudice, still it is important because it is one of the most
remarkable landmarks of who were the Butuanons in the past. The first mass, from
historiographical point of view, points to Butuan’s greatness in spearheading the
country’s civilization and that it will serve as our great inspiration to achieve what the
foreparents of the place have achieved.

References

Amazing Butuan (2009). Site of the first mass, after 488 years controversy continues.
Retrieved from http://amazingbutuan.blogspot.com/2009/04/site-of-first-mass-after-488-
years.html
Bernad, M. A. (2002). Butuan or Limasawa: The site of the first mass in the Philippines:
A reexamination of the evidence. Retrieved from
https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579
Danao, E. L. (2015). Where was the first Mass in the Philippines held?. Retrieved from
The Manila Times: http://www.manilatimes.net/first-mass-philippines-held/157730/
Holy Spirit Catholic School (n.d.) Antonio Pigafetta's Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.holyspirit-al.com/ourpages/auto/2011/4/20/41202190/magellen.pdf
Philippines to GO (n.d.). Revolvy (n.d.). St. James the great parish church in Bolinao,
Pangasinan. Retrieved from http://www.philippinestogo.com/st-james-the-great-church-
bolinao/
Pigafetta, A. (1522). The Philippine islands, 1493-1898, Volume 33. Ohio: The Arthur H.
Clark Company
Revolvy (n.d.). First mass in the Philippines. Retrieved from
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=First+Mass+in+the+Philippines