CASE STUDY 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in

the Philippines?

I. DISCUSSION OF SOURCES

Early on Easter Sunday morning, March 31, 1521, Magellan sent some men ashore to
prepare a suitable place. Some 50 men including Magellan followed, dressed in their
Sunday best. Six muskets fired as they stepped ashore and were greeted by Chiefs
Kulambo and Siaui. The two were brothers, the former being chief of Butuan and
Calaghan. In solemn procession led by Magellan flanked by the two chiefs, all
proceeded to the appointed site.

The chiefs were sprinkled with musk (holy?) water and Mass began, said by chaplain
Fr. Pedro de Villarrama. Kulambo, Siaui, and their followers observed Mass alongside
the Spanish. At the elevation, artillery of the three ships simultaneously fired. It was
pageantry designed to impress the natives who were described as also venerating the
Cross with the caveat that Enrique de Malacca, the translator, probably could not
explain how bread and wine were transformed to flesh and blood. After Mass, the crowd
was treated to a fencing exhibition. In the afternoon, a cross was carried and placed at
the summit of the highest nearby mountain. Antonio Pigafetta, chronicler of the
Magellan expedition, identified the place as “Mazaua.”

Early accounts—mainly by friars relying on available writings and on tradition—reported

the First Mass as being held in Butuan, Agusan del Norte, specifically on an island
called Masao. The 1734 Murillo-Velarde map, for example, indicates the first land
sighting as Surigao from where the expedition headed north to Dinagat and Limasaua,
then south to Butuan, back north to Limasaua, from where they sailed along the west
coast of Leyte, the Camotes Islands, and down to Sugbo and Mactan. In 1872, a marker
was raised in Agusan, at the place where the First Mass was then believed to have
been held. With changes in place names and in the course of the Agusan River, the
marker’s location is now in the town of Magallanes, across the river from Butuan City.
Historical thinking began to shift in the early 1900s with the availability of more primary
sources, notably accounts of Antonio Pigafetta, Francisco Albo, Gines de Mafra, and
other expedition members, as well as records of interviews of Magellan expedition
survivors.

Pigafetta organized and expanded his notes into a more detailed manuscript written
possibly in the Venetian dialect that was published in a French translation that was in
turn later published in Italian translation. These were rare books by the 19th century and
even Jose Rizal seemed to have been unaware of their existence. American librarian
James Robertson was thorough. He went the extra mile and translated from scratch
what is considered the most complete Pigafetta manuscript in Milan’s Biblioteca
Ambrosiana. His translation of Pigafetta’s account of the First Mass is in Vol. 32 of Blair
and Robertson’s The Philippine Islands. The official declaration is that Mazaua is the
island across from the southern tip of Leyte named Limasawa. This is hotly disputed by
those who insist that Mazaua is in Butuan and is the true site of the First Mass. They
question the reasoning and accuracy of the studies leading to the decision favoring
Limasawa.

The Philippine justice system has been brought into the picture with complaints now
before the Ombudsman against the National Historical Commission of the Philippines
(NHCP) chairman for graft and corruption and before the Butuan City prosecutor against
academicians from seven universities for libel.

Matching place names written 500 years ago with how they are now known is not
simple. Names may have changed and inquirers and respondents may have
misunderstood each other. Furthermore, what the locals said would have been written
by Pigafetta, Albo, etc. as they heard them and the latter’s transcription depended on
the language they spoke and wrote—the Venetian dialect in the case of Pigafetta. And
as long as we’re stirring the pot, aren’t we celebrating on the wrong day? First,
Magellan’s chroniclers kept meticulous daily records and at some point realized that
they were one day off. It was much later that science came up with the explanation.
When traveling westward, one crosses the international date line and gains one day.
Second, in 1521, Spain and other western countries were on the Julian Calendar that
was not precisely consistent with the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the
sun, i.e., 365.2425 days. The calendar was adopted by Roman Emperor Julius Caesar
in 45 B.C. and the accumulated 1,600+ year discrepancy caused the seasons to be out
of synch with the calendar—the calendar said it was already spring when it was still
snowing outdoors. This made Pope Gregory XIII adopt the system we now use (the
Gregorian Calendar) with an extra day in February for years divisible by 4, except for
century years whose number is not divisible by 400. The shift was made in October
1582 when 10 days were erased from the calendar—October 4 was followed by
October 15.

March 31, 2021 is not 500 years after Pigafetta’s March 31, 1521. We may be
celebrating on the wrong day and, if the Butuanons are correct, also in the wrong place.
Note: (a) Transcription obviously depends on the language and pronunciation of the
transcriber. The early conquistadors, for example, heard and wrote “Manila” as the
name of the settlement at the mouth of the Pasig. Locals may have called it “May-nilà”
meaning where there is nilà (indigo) or “May-nilad” meaning where there is the water
plant called nilad; and (b) The Murillo-Velarde map and eyewitness accounts do not
tally. The latter are clear that Samar was the first place sighted by the expeditions.
 II. REFLECTION

Limasawa, not Butuan, hosted the first mass in the Philippines. The first point is
Pigafetta's testimony of the route and map he created about "Mazzaua Island," where
the first mass took place. Limasawa is an island off the southwestern coast of Leyte,
and Butuan is a city in Caraga Region. Butuan, as described, is a river settlement near
the delta of the Agusan River, which is not mentioned in the witness's account.
In accordance with this, Mazaua is located at a latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees
north of the Arctic pole and a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees south of
the demarcation line. The description of the island corresponds to Limasawa, an island
on the southern tip of Leyte with coordinates of 9 degrees and 54 degrees north.
The absence of any mention of the river that describes Mazaua Island, as well as
geographic evidence indicating that the first mass took place in Limasawa. The second
point is the presence of two powerful kings, the King of Mazaua and King of Butuan,
when Magellan visited the island.
The latter is a visitor to Mazaua, and his territory is on Butuan, a separate island. As a
result, Mazaua is distinct from Butuan. Triana, the main barangay in the island town, is
another piece of evidence as to why Limasawa Island was the true site of the Easter
Sunday Mass. It is located in the Limasawa municipality. Magellan himself named the
barangay. Triana is a Seville suburb where Magellan married Beatriz Barbosa in its
main church. In the article "Butuan or Limasawa?" The First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of the Evidence," by Father Miguel Bernad, S.J. authored. Fr. Miguel
was a professor and researcher from Mindanao's Saint Xavier University in Cagayan de
Oro who traveled to Mazaua, Butuan City, and Limasawa, Southern Leyte to study the
Mass held during Magellan's expedition. He conducted research in Spain and other
locations associated with Magellan's Mass. During his research, he discovered on the
Pigafetta map that Mazaua was located at the southern tip of Leyte.
Modern maps will show that this corresponds to Limasawa, not Butuan. As a result, he
concluded that Magellan and his companions landed and held the Mass in Limasawa,
Southern Leyte. According to the Evidence of Albo's Log-Book, Francisco Albo joined
the Magellan expedition as a pilot on Magellan's flagship. He was one of the eighteen
survivors who returned to Earth with Sebastian Elcano after circumnavigating the globe.
Albo began keeping his own diary—just a log-book—during the voyage out, as they
sailed southward in the Atlantic along the coast of South America, off the coast of Brazil.
His account of their arrival in Philippine waters.
The events recorded in his log corresponded with Pigafetta's manuscripts, but the
names of places differed, such as Albo, an island known as "Yunagan," which was
known as "Samal" or Samar in Pigafetta's account. Albo called the island where they
anchored and re-supplied water "Gada," while Pigafetta called it "Acquada," but it all
means the same thing, whether it's "Gada" or "Acquada." Both refer to the island of
Homonhon, off the coast of Guiaun Point in Eastern Samar, where they resupplied with
water and took some provisions generously provided by the natives. Finally, in Albo's
logbook, Leyte was referred to as "Seilani," whereas Pigafetta's account referred to it as
"Ceylon." Although it is not explicitly stated in Albo's LogBook, Magellan and his crew
spent a week in Masaua and attended the First Mass on Easter Sunday.
However, Albo does mention the planting of the cross, which occurred after the mass,
on a mountain-top from which three islands to the west and southwest could be seen.
However, this description also applies to Limasawa's southern end. It does not fit the
Butuan coast, from which no islands can be seen to the south or southwest, but only to
the north. Finally, on June 19, 1960, Republic Act No. 2733, known as the Limasawa
Law, was enacted without the approval of the Executive. The legislative act also
designated the site in Magallanes, Limasawa Island, Province of Leyte, where the first
Mass in the Philippines was held, as a national shrine to commemorate the birth of
Christianity in the Philippines. Similarly, Limasawa Island is regarded as the pilgrimage
site of the first Catholic mass in Asia, which was celebrated on Easter Sunday, March
31, 1521, by Father Pedro de Valderrama aboard Ferdinand Magellan's fleet.

REFERENCES
https://mb.com.ph/2021/05/31/where-and-when-was-the-first-mass-held/
 CASE STUDY 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

I. DISCUSSION OF SOURCE

PRIMARY SOURCES: EXCERPTS FROM THE OFFICIAL REPOST OF GOVERNOR

IZQUIERDO ON THE CAVITE MUTINY OF 1872

Source: Rafael Izquirdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National
Book Store, 1990), 281-286.

It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy,
by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos...
The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the
government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury
that some practice in documents that the Finance department gives crop owners who
have to sell them at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by pretesting what they
called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute
starting January 1 and render personal service, from which they were formerly
exempted.

Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a monarchy or
a republic, because the Indios have no word in their language to describe this different
form of government, whose head in Filipino would be called hari; but it turns out that
they would place at the head of the government a priest... that the head selected would
be D. Jose Burgos, or D. Jacinto Zamora...
Such is... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted
upon for its realization.

It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the “revolution”: the abolition
of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from the
payment of tribute and being employed in polos y servicios, or force labor. They also
identified other reasons which seemingly made the issue a lot more serious, which
include the presence of the native clergy, who, out of spite against the Spanish friars,
“conspired and supported” the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report,
highlighted that attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines to
install a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgors and Zamora. According to him,
native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight
would not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises of lofty rewards
such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.
In the Spaniard’s accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated, and was part of a big
conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers, and residents of Manila
and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate high- ranking Spanish officers, then kill the
friars. The signal they identified among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the
rockets fired from Intramuros.

The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the
feast of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The
Cavitenos allegedly mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-
men contigent led by Sergeant Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized
the arsenal. Izquierdo, upon learning of the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the
Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when
the Manilenos who were expected to aid the Cavitenos did not arrive. Leaders of the
plot were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora
were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed. Others who were implicated
such as Joaquin de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and other Filipino
lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested and sentenced to life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of
artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by
Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos

never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.

II. REFLECTION

The Cavite Mutiny is interesting because there are a variety of contemporary accounts
of it, as well as various perspectives on its significance in the subsequent history of the
Philipines.

points of view and come to your own conclusion by weighing the evidence. Consider
the point of view and agenda of the authors of each of the accounts when balancing the
evidence.

That was the end of my original response. This was clearly a request for Quora to do
someone's homework or assignment, and I felt that was all that was necessary.

Given the passage of time, I believe it is safe to assume that the assignment has been
submitted.
Mutiny in Cavite in 1872

The Cavite Mutiny (Spanish: El Mótin de Cavite) of 1872 was an uprising of Filipino
military personnel at Fort San Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite,:107 Philippine
Islands (then also known as part of the Spanish East Indies), on January 20, 1872.
Around 200 locally recruited colonial troops and laborers rose up in the hope of sparking
a national uprising. The mutiny was unsuccessful, and government soldiers executed
many of the participants while cracking down on a burgeoning nationalist movement in
the Philippines.

Many scholars believed that the 1872 Cavite Mutiny was the beginning of Filipino
nationalism, which would eventually lead to the 1896 Philippine Revolution. Causes of
the Cavite Mutiny The causes of the Cavite Mutiny can be determined by studying the
various accounts of this historic event. Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish historian,
interprets the Mutiny as an attempt to remove and overthrow the Spanish colonizers in
the Philippines. His account was corroborated by the account of Governor-General
Rafael Izquidero y Gutierrez, the governor-general of the Philippine Islands at the time
of the Mutiny. They stated that the mutiny was led by a group of indigenous clergy....
Jose Montero y Vidal's account.Overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines as
a result of the removal of privileges enjoyed by Cavite arsenal laborers such as
exemption from tribute and forced labor. The democratic and republican books and
pamphlets, the speeches and preaching of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain, the
outburst of American publicists, and the cruel policies of the insensitive governor
appointed by the reigning government to govern the country. Filipinos put these ideas
into action when the conditions that gave rise to the idea of achieving independence
were present.

He insisted that the mutiny was instigated and planned by native clergy, mestizos, and
lawyers as a protest against the government's injustices such as not paying provinces
for tobacco crops, paying tribute, and enforcing forced labor. It is unclear whether Indios
intended to establish a monarchy or a republic because they lack a word in their own
language to describe this different form of government, whose leader would be referred
to as "hari" in Filipino. However, it turned out that they would appoint a priest as the
supreme of the government, with Jose Burgos or Jacinto Zamora as the chosen leader,
which was the plan of the rebels who guided them and the means they counted on its
realization.

Other Accounts of the Mutiny .The event is merely a mutiny because, at the time, the
Filipinos had no intention of seceding from Spain and were only concerned with
securing materials and educational advancements in the country. The mutiny, on the
other hand, was used at a high level. In addition, in

After reading that, I believe John Schumaker's article "The Cavite Mutiny: An Essay on
the Published Sources," Philippine Studies, Vol. pp. 603-632 in Volume 20, No. 4
(Fourth Quarter 1972). (30 pages).
This section provides a very readable historian's assessment of the veracity of various
accounts of the mutiny itself.
A Google search for "Cavite mutiny Philippine nationalism" yields a plethora of good
starting points. I'm not going to go there because I'm not an expert on Philippine history;
until I came across this question, my knowledge of it was limited to what I could glean
from a children's book "Our Boys in the Philippines," published in the United States in
1899, which can hardly be considered an unbiased account, and a sense that there was
an internet deep dive to be done on the issue of US war crimes in the Philippines.

Finally, I'd try to get a sense of where the Mutiny stands today as a part of Philippine
history. From my vantage point in Ireland, I am unable to provide an adequate
assessment.

REFERENCES

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42635001
 Case Study 3: DID RIZAL RETRACT?

I. DISCUSSION OF SOURCE

Accordingly, there was a number of priests coming from different congregations who
allegedly visited Dr. Jose Rizal while he was in prison waiting for his execution. Each
priest tried to convince Dr. Jose Rizal (maybe to gain the distinction that he was the one
who convinced Dr. Jose Rizal to retract). Moreover, the testimony of Reverend Vicente
Balaguer Llacer, S.J., contended that the Archbishop sent his commission to the Ateneo
to have a first-hand observation that, in case of conversion and before Fr. Vilaclara
would minister the last Sacrament to Dr. Jose Rizal, the latter would make a retraction
of errors publicly professed by him in words and writings, and utter a profession of
Catholic faith (Rizal’s Unfading Glory Attested, p7.).

In Madrid Papers, El Imparcial, Dec. 31, 1896, Father Faura and Father Vilaclara tried
to PERSUADE Dr. Jose Rizal to put down his rancors and to turn his eyes to heaven.
This was sent by the correspondent on Dec. 30, of the same year. On the following day
of the same papers, it is quoted: “Notwithstanding the conversations of the famous
Jesuit Fathers Faura and Vilaclara with Rizal in the chapel (of the prison), the convict
continued to refuse to confess and remained obstinate in his philosophical and political
theories.” During their conversation, Dr. Jose Rizal said that when he was in Madrid, the
Republicans were telling me that liberties are sought with bullets, and not by kneeling
down. “Truly, these ideas aroused in my soul are the authors of my work. My only sin is
that of pride.”

In their conversation with Fr. Vilaclara, Dr. Jose Rizal declared himself a rationalist or
freethinker, unwilling to admit any criterion of truth than individual reason. Thus, when
Fr. Vilaclara attacked Dr. Jose Rizal with arguments anchored on Catholic doctrine, he
begun to expound the objections of the heretics and rationalists, a thousand times
refuted already (Rizal’s Unfading Glory Attested, p7). He refuted them with unassailable
and irrefutable arguments. Here are words of Dr. Jose Rizal:
“Look here, father if to please Your Reverences I would say yes to everything and would
sign everything you present to me without meaning it, I would be hypocrite and would
offend God.”

“But Father,”-he replied with regret—“what would you have me do, since it seems that I
cannot dominate my reason?” • The above quotations show that Dr. Jose Rizal was
forced to sign the retraction, if indeed he executed one. Even in his last breath, he
remained steadfast in his resolve to stick to his convictions.

Granting for the sake of argument that there was a retraction, why is it that this paper
was not presented immediately? Would it not cast doubt as to the veracity of the claim
for the existence of such retraction? Or if there was, the substance or content of such
would obviously not tally to what a retraction should be. According to the testimonies,
Rizal made corrections and wrote some annotations. Would it not be equally possible
that what the national hero wrote was a clear rebuff with this expression: “Bueno, mís
amigos, qué vayan ustédes todos al infierno!”

Finally, the fulcrum of all the arguments that could expose the myth of the existence of
retraction is the incontrovertible proofs constructed by Dr. Ricardo Pascual of the
University of the Philippines in his book “Dr. Jose Rizal: Beyond the Grave” that
Downloaded by Dobby The elf (theelfdoby27@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|11181151
demonstrated the truth that the said retraction was nothing more than a forgery.
According to Dr. Pascual there, is an overwhelming number of evidence extracted out
from his study using scientific method of external and internal textual criticisms that
point out to the fact that the supposed original document of the retraction was a forgery.
Dr. Pascual opined that “the difference in the forms of letters, slants, habits of writings,
distinct characteristics in the signature between the genuine writings on one hand and
the retraction on the other, and the closed affinity between the writings supposed to be
done by different persons in the same document,” demonstrate that the retraction is a
forgery.
II. REFLECTION

Based on what i read,Rizal did not retract. Although there were numerous opinions and
evidences presented by various authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract.
Nonetheless, there is no proof or justification to conclude the debate as of yet.
The following assertions give rise to the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his
execution.

The first was a copy of the retraction paper, which was allegedly signed by Rizal and
was even dated.It was kept secret and only published in newspapers. When Rizal's
family inquired about the original copy, it was stated that it had been lost. Could the
Jesuits have been so irresponsible as to not know the worth of the paper? Or was it
simply hidden?

The original copy was discovered in the archdiocese's archives 39 years later. Ricardo
Pascual, Ph. D, was granted permission by Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the
document and later concluded in his book, "Rizal Beyond the Grave," that the document
presented was a forgery. The common rebuttal to this argument was that either Father
Balaguer or Father Pi had made mistakes in reproducing another copy of the original.

Another proof that Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer agreed to marry
Jose and Josephine after Jose signed the retraction paper, there was no marriage
certificate or public record to prove Father Balaguer's statements.

Why would Rizal retract when he knows he will be executed even if he signs the
retraction paper? Because the judicial process involved was purely a military tribunal
where civilian or church interference was uncommon and not allowed, the Archbishop
and Jesuits are powerless to mitigate his sentence. Rizal was charged with filibusterous
propaganda, a crime punishable by death under the Spanish penal code. The same
thing happened to the three priests who were garrotted years before, despite the fact
that they were still members of the church; they were still treated as rebels and were not
given a proper burial.

Furthermore, when Rizal was still exiled in Dapitan, Father Sanchez- Rizal's favorite
Ateneo teacher- was sent by Jesuit superiors to try to persuade his former student's
allegation against the Catholic religion and Spanish religious in the Philippines. Father
Sanchez offered him a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos, and an estate in
exchange for his retraction (Laubach, 1936), but Rizal declined.

It was argued that Rizal recanted to protect his family from further persecution, to give
Josephine Bracken legal status as his wife, and to ensure reforms from the Spanish
government. It is more likely to be of Rizal's mentality, but would Rizal simply disregard
all of the writing he conceived with his hard work? Are these the same writings that led
to his execution? No.
Rizal’s behaviour during his last hours in Fort Santiago does not point to a conversion-
the Mi Ultimo Adios and letters- or indicate even a religious instability. In the evening
where his sister and mother arrived, never had he mentioned about the retraction,
contrary to what Father Balaguer claimed that even in the afternoon, Rizal was oblivious
and was asking for the formula of the retraction.

Rizal's actions during his final hours in Fort Santiago do not point to a conversion—the
Mi Ultimo Adios and letters—or even to religious instability. Contrary to Father
Balaguer's claim that Rizal was oblivious and asking for the retraction formula even in
the afternoon when his sister and mother arrived, he never mentioned the retraction in
the evening when his sister and mother arrived.

REFERENCES
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/holy-name-university/accountancy/did-jose-rizal-
retract/11823560