ACTIVITY NO 6.

1. What is your stand about the site of the First Mass?

 My stand about the site of the First Mass, is that the first Catholic mass in the
Philippines happened on March 31, 1521, just three days after Ferdinand Magellan
landed on Philippine shore. This event is seen to be the birth of Roman Catholicism in
the country. The location of the mass was contentious. Originally it was thought to be
in the island of Limasawa, in Leyte, but other historians argue that a mistranslation
resulted to that error, and that the place should be Butuan (the place where the Golden
Tara was also discovered).

2. Cite evidences which would suggest that the First Mass happened in Masua
(Butuan) and Limasawa (Southern Leyte)?

Basing from the information and evidences which I have researched, I affirm that the first
mass in the Philippines was held in Limasawa.

 The first evidence to support my argument in accordance to the accounts of

Pigafetta and Francisco Albo who are the eye-witnesses of the Magellan’s voyage
both stated that the first mass in the Philippines took place on an island called Mazava
in Albo’s account and Mazaua in Pigafetta’s account. They both asserted that from
the island of Homonhon they went westward towards the island of Leyte and turned
to a southwest direction to reach this island. Based on this geographic locations
provided by Albo and Pigafetta, the island of Limasawa in Southern Leyte is the
counterpart.

 Secondly, Magellan did not go to Butuan to meet the king there. According to
Pigafetta and Albo, while in the island of Mazaua, they met two chieftains: one is the
chieftain of Mazaua and one is the chieftain of Butuan who was said to be visiting the
island. This oppose to the book written Historia de Mindanao y Jolo written by
Francisco Combes S.J. who worked as a missionary in the Philippines. He stated that
Magellan went to Butuan because they heard the king in Butuan is more
powerful that they wanted to meet him. It was said that their expectations were
satisfied by the king. As a result, they planted a cross on a hill in a solemn ceremony
 as sign of future alliance. In Francisco Colin’s Work, the first mass occurred the same
day they planted a cross. In this case, I hereby agree to Pigafettas’s and Albo’s
account because they are eye-witnesses and considered as first-hand accounts.
Pigafetta’s work is the most detailed and reliable source of information regarding
Magellan’s voyage compared to the claims stated by second hand accounts.

REFERENCES:

Makabenta, y. (2019, January 31). The Manila Times. Magellan Never Went to Butuan.
Retrievedfrom:https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/01/31/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/
Magellan-never-went-to-butuan/504604

Mayol, A.V & Gabieta, J. (2020, August 21). Limasawa, not Butuan, affirmed as site of
first Mass in PH. Retrieved from https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1325039/limasawa-not-
butuan-affirmed-as-site-of-first-mass-in-phAbatayo

3. How credible is this account in explaining the site of the First Mass?
 The researchers are looking for the truth and evidence that could lead to when the first
Mass actually took place. The data shown in the text is the evidence collected by the
researchers in this case study about where the first mass actually takes place. The text
analyzes the only two primary sources alluded to by historians in determining the
location of the first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo and and the more
complete, was the account of Antonio Pigafetta.

4. How do the evidences presented in the text help you understand the controversy on
the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines?
 The evidences presented in the text; is already enough for me to affirm that Limasawa
is the original place where the first mass in the Philippines was held on. It produce
deeper understanding about the controversy between Limasawa and Butuan. This
issue is still not resolved until now, both parties still fighting to win the controversy.
In my opinion, they are not just simply fighting whether where the first mass happen,
rather they want to get their identity to answer the question who they are. History has
 a crucial role in shaping an identity. It use different basis that are thoroughly studied
and evaluated by experts to write the history. Historical conflicts and
misunderstandings are just normal. Just like the issue of the first mass in the
Philippines.

5. How does Governor Gen. Izquierdo describe Cavity Mutiny compared from the
version of Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera?
 Governor-General Izquierdo argued that the Cavity Mutiny is stimulated and prepared
by the native clergy, mestizos and lawyers as a signal of objection against the
injustices of the government such as not paying provinces for tobacco crops, pay
tribute and rendering of forced labor. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly
Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He
reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish
government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora.

6. What does the account of Jose Montero y Vidal tell us? To which version does this
account related to? Explain.
 Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and
highlighted it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines. His account, corroborated with the account of Governor - General Rafael
Izquidero y Gutierrez, the governor-general of the Philippine Islands during the
Mutiny. They mentioned that the mutiny was powered by a group of native clergy.

7. Among the three versions of Cavite Mutiny, which one is not credible? Why?
 Versions of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 by Thisbe Dabb, considering the three
accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, the jury had decided that there were some basic facts
that remained to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of
the arsenal as well as the members of the native army after their privileges were
drawn. Not only are primary source materials still lacking however, there is
considerable confusion as to the worth of the various published accounts of the events
of 1872 both as to primary and to secondary.