THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

Overview:

Philippine History is full of controversial issues. In fact some of them are still unresolved
up to the present time. Dealing with controversies takes extra care because historians
who have raised their arguments on them have their respective points. Moreover,
dealing with them would take great effort in reviewing historiographic approaches
employed in the gathering, analyzing and interpreting sources. The existence of
discourses concerning these controversies makes history alive and very much interesting
to study.

Limasawa and Butuan.

NATIONAL HISTORICAL INSTITUTE

Gancayco Commission officially recognized Limasawa

committee headed by Dr. Benito J. Legarda in 2008 and recently Mojares Panel 2018,
pro-Butuan camp presented evidences

The First Mass and the Gancayco Commission

The National Historical Institute, (NHI; now a Commission) through the Gancayco
Commission, declared that the first Catholic mass in the country was celebrated by

Fr. Pedro de Valderrama in Limasawa, in the present-day province of

Southern Leyte on March 31, 1521. The Commission which was headed by retired
Supreme Court Justice Emilio Gancayco, along with Atty. Bartolome Fernandez and Dr.
Maria Luisa Camagay, was tasked to resolve a very sensitive historical issue concerning
the Philippines and its people.
Through a 24-page decision, the Commission concluded that the First Mass was
celebrated in Limasawa due to the following circumstances:

James Robertson's English translation of the original Italian manuscript of Pigafetta's

account is considered most reliable for being "faithful" to the original text as duly
certified by the Department of European Language of the University of the Philippines.

Pigafetta's Mazaua, the site of the First Catholic Mass held on Philippine soil, is

an island lying off the southwestern tip of Leyte while Masao in Butuan is not an
island but a barangay of Butuan City located in a delta of the Agusan River along the
coast of Northern Mindanao.

The position of Mazaua, as plotted by Pigafetta, matched that of Limasawa.

The measurement of distances between Homonhon and Limasawa and between

Limasawa and Cebu, as computed by the pro-Limasawa group,

matches or approximates the description made by Pigafetta of the distances

between Homonhon and Mazaua and between Mazaua and Cebu.

Magellan's fleet took a route from Homonhon to Mazaua and from Mazaua to Cebu that
did not at any time touch Butuan or any other part of Mindanao. The docking facilities
at Limasawa did not pose any problem for Magellan's fleet which anchored near or at
some safe distance from the island of the eastern shore.

Although the Commission submitted its findings to Dr. Samuel Tan of the National
Historical Institute on March 20, 1998, the finding was formally turned over to
Limasawa officials on March 31 of the same year on the occasion of the 478th
anniversary of the First Mass.
Reiteration through the 2009 Legarda Commission

On June 15, 2009, the National Historical Institute adopted the recommendation of this
Commission on the site of the First Mass on Philippine soil. The Commission reiterated
the conclusion of the previous Gancayco Commission which declared Limasawa as the
site of the First Mass. The Commission which was headed by Dr. Benito J. Legarda with
members Fr. Jose Cruz and Mr. Pedro Picornell aimed at re-examining the matter by
conducting a hearing on August 29, 2008 at the National Museum (NM) in order to hear
the respective positions of the Butuan and Limasawa sides. Subsequent meetings were
held r January 30 and March 21, 2009 with Dr. Celestina Boncan of UP Manila and Dr.
Ricaru Jose of UP Diliman. "The committee used as bases for re-examination the
timeline, direction, and duration of the sailing routes, the presence or absence of land
forms (islands and river deltas), and geographical location by latitude as contained in
the primary sources, the Gancayco Report, and the study of the late Fr. Miguel Bernad."

CBCP), Dr. Francis Navarro from the Ateneo de Manila University and Dr. Jose Victor
Torres from the De La Salle University-Manila as members, conducted evaluation
proceedings on December 12 and 13, 2018 in Cebu City. Through this panel, new
perspectives emerged. CBCP), Dr. Francis Navarro from the Ateneo de Manila University
and Dr. Jose Victor Torres from the De La Salle University-Manila as members, conducted
evaluation proceedings on December 12 and 13, 2018 in Cebu City. Through this panel,
new perspectives emerged.

According to the article published at the Manila times by the historian Xiao Chua (2019),
two respondents gave their arguments: Gabriel Atega and Dr. Potenciano Malvar. Atega
argued that "the measurements as recorded in a French manuscript of the Magellan
Expedition chronicle by Antonio Pigafetta... provided accurate measurements and
thus the 9 degrees 2/3 N latitude referred therein passes through Mindanao, the island
of which Magallanes, Agusan del Norte (Old Butuan) was part" (para. 10).
On the other hand, Dr. Malvar suggested that "based on the agreement of Magellan
with King Charles V, profits from trade from discovered lands will benefit Magellan's
descendants, Pigafetta will not let other travelers accurately know the exact location of
'Mazaua' because the area was rich in resources" (para. 11).

Jose of UP Diliman. "The committee used as bases for re-examination thie tmeline,
direction, and duration of the sailing routes, the presence or absence of land forms
(islands and river deltas), and geographical location by latitude as contained in the
primary sources, the Gancayco Report, and the study of the late Fr. Miguel Bernad."

The Mojares Panel

In line with the 500 years of the coming of Christianity to the Philippines, the National
Historical Commission of the Philippines and the National Quincentennial Committee
created a new panel with the view of reexamining the Butuan claim. The panel which was
headed by Dr. Resil Mojares, with Dr. Danilo Gerona from the Partido State University, Dr.
Carlos Madrid Alvarez-Piñer from the Instituto Cervantes de Manila, Fr. Antonio
Francisco B. De Castro, SJ, who represented the Catholic Bishops Conference of the
Philippines

In that same article, Chua mentioned that both Atega and Malvar agreed "that the site
of the Mass was a different place from Mazaua and that the clue is in an 1872
monument for the aforementioned mass in Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. They also
pointed out to [sic] Francisco Albo's testimony that when they planted the cross on
the highest hill then, they saw three islands west-southwest. Both of them claimed 'that
climbing the two nearest mountains to the 1872 monument, one would see Camiguin
Island west- southwest, but only its three mountains were visible (which made them look
like islands)" (para. 12).
Activity

1. Create a Venn Diagram comparing the points of argument used by the Masao side
and Limasawa side in claiming that the First Easter Mass in the Philippine occurred in
their respective localities.

2. Out of the arguments presented by the two sides, write a short essay stating

your view on the issue. 3. Are you in favor with the conclusions made by the various
committees tasked to discuss the controversy? Explain your answer.
**Venn Diagram:**
Points of Argument - Limasawa Side:
1. Pigafetta's account, translated by James Robertson, indicates Limasawa as the site of the First
Mass.
2. Pigafetta's description of Mazaua matches the location of Limasawa.
3. The computed distances between Homonhon, Limasawa, and Cebu match Pigafetta's
descriptions.
4. Magellan's fleet route did not touch Butuan or Mindanao.
5. Docking facilities at Limasawa were suitable for Magellan's fleet.

Points of Argument - Butuan Side:

1. French manuscript of Pigafetta's account suggests a latitude passing through Mindanao.
2. Concerns about disclosing the exact location due to potential resource exploitation.
3. Reference to Francisco Albo's testimony about seeing three islands from Magallanes, Agusan
del Norte.

4. the wooden cross was planted hill upon its summit serve as landmark(?) after mass

SIMILARITIES

- both have primary sources: Antonio Pigafetta and Francisco Albo being the eyewitness

- Both claim to be the location of an ancient religious ceremony

- Geographical Locations and formation takes a significant role in both claims

- Magelan’s expidition serves as piece on identifying where it takes place

- Antonio Pigafetta serves as an important basis on where the First mass actualy
happened
Short Essay:
After evaluating the arguments presented by both the Limasawa and Butuan sides regarding the
site of the First Easter Mass in the Philippines, I am inclined to support the conclusion that
Limasawa is the most probable location.

Pigafetta's account, translated by James Robertson, serves as a primary historical source and
indicates Limasawa as the site of the First Mass. The consistency between Pigafetta's description
of Mazaua and the geography of Limasawa strengthens this claim. Additionally, the computed
distances between key locations align with Pigafetta's descriptions, further supporting
Limasawa's candidacy.

While the Butuan side presents intriguing arguments, such as the latitude reference in a French
manuscript and concerns about resource exploitation leading to secrecy, these points lack the
direct correlation and consistency found in the evidence supporting Limasawa.

Furthermore, the findings of multiple committees, including the Gancayco Commission, the
Legarda Commission, and the Mojares Panel, have affirmed Limasawa as the site of the First
Mass. Their thorough examination of historical documents and geographical considerations
provides a solid basis for their conclusions.

In conclusion, while acknowledging the complexity of historical controversies and the

importance of considering multiple perspectives, the preponderance of evidence and the
consensus of expert committees support the designation of Limasawa as the site of the First
Easter Mass in the Philippines.

Conclusions of Committees:
I am generally in favor of the conclusions made by the various committees tasked to discuss the
controversy. These committees, composed of historians, scholars, and experts in relevant fields,
conducted extensive research and analysis to arrive at their findings. Their efforts in examining
historical documents, evaluating geographical features, and considering different viewpoints
contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.
While controversies like this may never be fully resolved due to the limitations of historical
evidence and interpretation, the conclusions drawn by these committees provide valuable
insights and serve as important reference points for understanding Philippine history. Therefore, I
support their conclusions as they represent the culmination of rigorous academic inquiry and
scholarly debate.