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 Strong Points base on the art
 Archival Evidence: Some proponents argue that Butuan has historical  Magellan's expedition
documents to support its claim. The Butuanon Oral Tradition, for in Limasawa on Marc
instance, suggests that the first Easter Mass in the Philippines was the island eagerly part
held in Butuan in 1521.  The historical marker
 Some historians argue that the first mass was celebrated in Butuan, Commission of the Ph
pointing to the presence of a cross and other religious artifacts that are celebrated there, givin
believed to predate the arrival of Magellan in Limasawa.  The narrative of the fi
 The claim is supported by local oral traditions and the existence of the schools and is well-kn
Balangay boats, which are ancient vessels associated with the Butuan
culture and believed to have been used during the arrival of Christianity
in the area.

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

The first documented Catholic Mass in the Philippines was held on March 31, 1521, Easter Sunday. It was cond
Magellan's expedition along the shores of what was referred to in the journals of Antonio Pigafetta as "Mazaua
Today, this site is widely believed by many historians and the government to be Limasawa off the tip of Southe
century, the prevailing belief was that the first mass was held in Butuan.[3] This belief is maintained by some, w
Masao, Butuan.
On June 19, 1960, Republic Act No. 2733, known as the "Limasawa Law", was enacted without executive appro
"The site in Magallanes, Limasawa Island in the Province of Leyte, where the first Mass in the Philippines was h
commemorate the birth of Christianity in the Philippines.

4 Dec. 2022. Philippine History. First Mass in the Philippines.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mass_in_the_Philippines#:~:text=The%20legislative%20fiat%20declared