Instruction: In this activity you will be needing to wear the 4 hats of a historian and create a

critical judgement on the readings that you will take. Read the Article below then afterwards
answer the table at the end of the reading.

THE SITE OF FIRST MASS: A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE

Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. This has been the case for
three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which
commemorates the expedition’s arrival and celebration of Mass on April 8, 1521. The Butuan
claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event. It
must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians refer to in identifying the
site of the first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of Magellan’s ship,
Trinidad. The other, and the more complete was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, First Voyage
Around the world. Pigafetta like Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and an
eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.

Magellan Never Went to Butuan

By: Yen Makabenta
January 31. 2019, The Manila Times

In the book, The Great Island, Fr. Miguel Bernad, S.J., also included a long scholarly
essay on the centuries-old controversy regarding the site of the first mass celebrated in the
Philippine islands, which has exercised many Filipinos and scholars, including those of our
present generation.

According to Antonio Pigafetta, the Italian chronicler of the Magellan expedition, the mass
was held on Easter Sunday, on an island called “Mazaua.” Two native chieftains were in
attendance, the rajah of Mazaua, and the rajah of Butuan.

After the mass, the party went up a little hill and planted a wooden cross upon its
summit.”
The subject of controversy is the identity of Mazaua. There are two conflicting claims as
to its identity. One school of thought points to the small island south of Leyte, which on the map
is called Limasawa. The other school rejects that claim and points instead to the beach called
‘ao,’ at the mouth of the Agusan River in northern Mindanao, near the village (now the city) of
Butuan.

In his article, Fr. Bernad re-examines and assesses the evidence for these two claims. He
gives each claim its due and a hearing of whatever evidence are in its favor.
I should disclose here that I am not the first to take up this subject in the Manila Times. Just
recently, a colleague, Michael ‘Xiao’ Chua, in his column of Jan. 20, 2019 reported that a panel
has been created to review the Butuan claim to have been the site of the first mass.

The Butuan claim

Fr. Bernad’s presentation of the historical records and his assessment of the arguments
speak eloquently for itself. He backs up each finding with generous citations in his notes and a
bibliography.
I was frankly surprised by Fr. Bernad‘s report that the Butuan claim has been the more
ascendant and persistent, reigning over public opinion for some three centuries, the 17th, the
18th and the 19th century.
 I was frankly surprised by Fr. Bernad‘s report that the Butuan claim has been the more
ascendant and persistent, reigning over public opinion for some three centuries, the 17th, the
18th and the 19th century.

On the strength of this tradition, a monument was erected in 1872 at the mouth of the
Agusan River. The monument was erected apparently at the instigation of the parish priest of
Butuan, who at the time was a Spanish friar of the Order of Augustinian Recollects. The date
given for the first Mass was April 8, 1521, an obvious error that may have been due to an
anachronistic attempt to translate the original date in the Gregorian calendar.

The monument is a testimonial to the Butuan tradition that remained vigorous until the
end of the 19th century, which held that Magellan and his expedition landed in Butuan, and
celebrated there the first mass on Philippine soil.

Because the Butuan tradition had already been established by the middle of the 17h
century, it was accepted without question by two Jesuit historians who got misled by their facts.
On historian was Fr. Francisco Colin, S.J. (1592-1660), whose Labor Evangelica was first
published in Madrid in 1663, three years after his death. He provided in the book an account of
Magellan’s arrival and the first mass.

The other Jesuit writer of the mid-17th century was Francisco Combes S.J. (1620-1665),
who had lived and worked as a missionary in the Philippines. His Historia de Mindanao y Jolo
was printed in Madrid in 1667, four years after Colin’s work was published.
Colin and Combes gave different accounts of the route taken by Magellan. But they asserted that
Magellan landed in Butuan and there planted the cross in a solemn ceremony.
Both Colin and Combes pictured Magellan as visiting both Butuan and Limasawa.
Both Colin and Combes agree that it was from Limasawa and with the help of Limasawa’s
chieftain that the Magellan expedition went to Cebu. Magellan arrived in Cebu on April 7, 1521,
one week after the first mass.

In the 19th century, the Butuan tradition was taken for granted and it is mentioned by
writer after writer, each copying from the previous one, and being in turn copied by those who
came after.

The accumulated errors of three centuries are found in the work of Dominican friar,
Valentin Morales y Marin, whose two-volume treatise on the friars was published in Santo Tomas
in Manila in 1901.
As late as the 1920s, the Philippine history textbook used at the Ateneo de Manila used
the Butuan tradition.
Opinion shifts to Limasawa
How did the shift in opinion from Butuan to Limasawa come about?
Blame was at first laid on the Americans Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson,
who authored the 55-volume collection of documents on the Philippines Island that was
published in Cleveland from 1903 to 1909.
The cause of the shift in opinion was the publication in 1894 of Pigafetta’s account,
as contained in the Ambrosian Codex.
Pigafetta was the chronicler of the Magellan expedition in 1521 that brought
Europeans for the first time to the archipelago.
Pigafetta’s narrative was reproduced with English translation, notes, bibliography
and index in Blair and Robertson’s The Philippine Islands, volumes 33 and 34.
Following the publication of the Pigafetta text in 1894, two Philippine scholars
called attention to the fact that the Butuan tradition had been a mistake. One of the
scholars was Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera. The other was the Spanish Jesuit missionary,
Pablo Pastells, S.J.
Fr. Pastells prepared a new edition of Fr Colin’s Labor Evangelica, which was
published in 1902, and which contained a correction about the first mass.
Pastells‘ shift in opinion from Butuan to Limasawa was due to a rediscovery and a more
attentive study of the primary sources on the subject:
Pigafetta’s account and Francisco Albo’s log of the expedition. Pigafetta and Albo
`
were eyewitnesses.

Pastells wrote:
“Magellan did not go to Butuan. Rather, from the island of Limasawa, he proceeded
directly to Cebu.”
Among the Philippine scholars of the early 20th century who rejected the Butuan
tradition in favor of Limasawa was Jayme de Veyra.
Since then, the Limasawa opinion has been generally accepted, although there
remains a small but vigorous group determined to push the Butuan claim.

Fr. Bernad summarized the evidence for Limasawa as follows:

1. The evidence from Albo’s logbook
2. The evidence of Pigafetta
a. Pigafetta’s testimony regarding the route
b. The evidence of Pigafetta’s maps
c. The two native kings
d. The seven days at ‘Mazaua’
3. Confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi expedition.

Consequently, the Butuan claim as the site of the first Mass has no leg to stand on.
Ferdinand Magellan never visited Butuan.
Source: https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/01/31/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/magellan-never-went-to-
butuan/504604/
Instruction: Explain the different strong points of both claims in a bullet form type, explain
each concept by citing specific text coming from the article itself.
Where was the First Mass held
BUTUAN OR LIMASAWA?
BUTUAN
Strong Points base on the article
According to the article supporting the First Mass
being held in Butuan and not in Limasawa, the
reasons are as follows:
• Long-standing tradition and public
opinion: The Butuan claim had prevailed
and influenced public opinion for three
centuries, from the 17th to the 19th
century, making it the dominant narrative.
• Monument erected in Butuan: In 1872, a
monument was erected in Butuan at the
instigation of the parish priest, emphasizing
the Butuan tradition and reinforcing its
significance.
• Acceptance by influential historians: The
Butuan tradition was unquestioningly
accepted by two Jesuit historians, Fr.
Francisco Colin and Francisco Combes, in
the mid-17th century. Their accounts
supported the idea that Magellan landed in
Butuan and celebrated the first mass there.
• Endorsement by writers: The Butuan
tradition was repeatedly mentioned and
copied by various writers throughout the
19th century, further solidifying its
acceptance.
• Errors in historical works: The accumulated
errors over three centuries, including the
works of Dominican friar Valentin Morales y
Marin, contributed to the perpetuation of
the Butuan tradition, even being present in
textbooks until the 1920s.
LIMASAWA
Strong Points base on the article
The article in opinion from Butuan to Limasawa
regarding the location of the First Mass came about
due to several factors and the examination of
primary sources. Here are the reasons and
evidence supporting the First Mass being held in
Limasawa:
• Publication of Pigafetta's Account: In 1894,
Pigafetta's account of the Magellan
expedition was published, including the
Ambrosian Codex, which provided valuable
primary source information. This account
contradicted the Butuan tradition and
sparked a reevaluation of the events.
• Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera and Fr. Pablo
Pastells: Both Philippine scholars, Pardo de
Tavera and Fr. Pastells, drew attention to
the mistake in the Butuan tradition after
studying the primary sources. Fr. Pastells'
new edition of Fr. Colin's Labor Evangelica,
published in 1902, contained a correction
stating that Magellan did not go to Butuan
but proceeded directly from Limasawa to
Cebu.
• Primary Sources: The primary sources
examined, including Pigafetta's account and
Francisco Albo's log of the expedition,
provided evidence supporting the First
Mass in Limasawa. These eyewitness
testimonies and maps suggested a route
from Limasawa to Cebu, corroborating the
shift in opinion.
• Acceptance by Scholars: Scholars of the
early 20th century, such as Jayme de Veyra,
rejected the Butuan tradition in favor of
Limasawa based on the new evidence and
analysis. Since then, the Limasawa opinion
 has generally been accepted by the
academic community.

In addition to, Fr. Bernad summarized the evidence

supporting Limasawa, including Albo's logbook,
Pigafetta's testimony and maps, the presence of
two native kings, and the mention of seven days at
"Mazaua." Additionally, confirmatory evidence
from the Legazpi expedition further supported the
notion of Limasawa as the location of the First
Mass.

Short Research: What’s the current declaration of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines in
regards with the First Mass held in the Philippines? Provide a 5-8 sentence summary about it and don’t
forget to cite your references.

According to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, they officially declared that the First
Mass in the Philippines was held in Limasawa. This declaration is based on careful research and analysis
conducted by the NHCP. They have examined historical accounts and primary sources, such as Pigafetta's
narrative and Francisco Albo's logbook, which provide valuable insights into the events of the Magellan
expedition. The NHCP's decision is also influenced by the opinions of respected scholars like Trinidad H.
Pardo de Tavera and Pablo Pastells, who have challenged the previous belief in the Butuan claim.

By considering various pieces of evidence, including Pigafetta's testimonies, maps, the presence of two
native kings, and the reference to the seven days at 'Mazaua,' the NHCP has concluded that Limasawa is
the most likely location for the First Mass. This declaration reflects the consensus among Philippine
scholars and historians regarding the historical significance of Limasawa in the arrival of Europeans in the
Philippines.

REFERENCES:
• NHCP affirms Limasawa Island as site of first Catholic mass in the country. (n.d.). Cnn.

http://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/8/20/NHCP-affirms-Limasawa-Island-as-site-

of-first-Catholic-mass-in-the-country.html