First Mass: Limasawa or Masao?

As a Catholic country it is indeed a question among the members of Roman Catholicism

in the Philippines because there is confusion and vague information about the first mass in the
Philippine islands brought by the Spaniards in 1521. Controversy, issues, and different versions
of accounts sparked as to where the island called “Mazaua” was referred to in the chronicles of
Pigafetta as a primary source. There are two conflicting claims as to its identity one of which
points to the small island located on the southernmost part of the province of Southern Leyte
which commonly known as “Limasawa” and on the other hand, points to the beach called
“Masao” at the delta of Agusan River in Northern Mindanao, now the city of Butuan. In line
with this, this paper will reexamine and reconcile the two claims through the present researches
and evidences.
According to the declaration of RA 2733 that stating the first mass in the Philippines took
place in an easter Sunday, on the island of Limasawa. Antonio Pigafetta was the account used by
both opposing parties as primary source. The Ambrosian text, the complete and original version,
and the Fabre Ramusio’s text a distorted and altered version to which pro-Butuan propagandists
based their research.
Geographic wise it should be noted that the cross is not found anywhere near Butuan but
on the separate island, Limasawa. Also, geographical evidences are showing that the place or
island where the mass took place was in Limasawa. From the logbook of Albo, a captain from
Magellan’s flagship “Trinidad”, from the island of Homonhon and the large island of Seilani or
which is now known as Leyte, they come up with island they have been called “Mazaua” which
lies at a latitude of 9 and 2 degrees north. The said island is deemed fit with the island of
Limasawa, an island on the southern tip of Leyte with a coordinates of 9 and 54 degrees north. It
also describes an event of planting a cross on a mountain top. This also fits the location of
Limasawa and not the coast of Butuan where there are no islands can be seen from the south or
southwest, only from the north.
Moreover, as described by Pigafetta, the route of the expedition coincides substantially
with what is described in the log of Albo. Before getting to Cebu, the southernmost point they
reached is the Mazava which is 9 and two third north latitude. Pigafetta also has sketches of the
islands they have been to. Although his sketches are like a navigational chart, they are very
helpful in identifying the islands he mentioned in his narrative in terms of its relative location
and sizes. Three maps were mentioned, the island of Samar, the island of Limasawa, and the
island of Mindanao respectively. It can be seen in these maps that the island of Mazaua is
roughly equivalent to the actual position of Limasawa.
In the logbook by Francisco Albo and Pigafetta’s account, the geographical evidences
were showing that “Mazaua” is roughly equivalent to the actual position of Limasawa. The two
kings when Magellan visited the island, the king of Mazaua and of Butuan. The fact known that
the latter is a visitor of Mazaua and his territory is on Butuan which is another island. It can be
said that Mazaua is not Butuan. The evidence that there is no river mentioned in Pigafetta’s
account and that Mazau is an island proves that it is surrounded by sea and not a river delta
On the other hand, the pro-Butuan proponents asserted that passing a law, the RA 2733
that lapsed into a law without executive approval is not a substantial evidence knowing that it
was not even approved by the executives and had no scientific evidences as well. Masawa,
Butuan is the venue of the first mass in the Philippines. They pointed out that taking a look into
the accounts of Pigafetta and Albo, the word Limasawa was not mentioned at all.
In accuracy of the map and the calculation of the exact location of the island of Mazzau is
a questionable evidence to claim that the first mass happened in Limasawa if geographical
features says it’s Masawa, Butuan. Looking closely to Pigafetta’s account, it says there that the
island of Mazzau has great quantity of fowls, goats, pigs, and many more especially rice and
gold mines. Masawa has it all richly and Limasawa is a small and poor island, lacking in the
presence of fertile rice field and abundance of gold. Also there is an existing route from Butuan
to Cebu and this two city has a great relationship with each other since then that Limasawa to
Cebu has none. The evidence that claims that the first mass was really in Butuan is the ten 1,600-
year-old Balanghai boats that were dug up near the delta of Masao River in 1976 it is believed to
have been used for trade and transport people for worship services. In fact, the Philippine
government endorsed the Balanhai shrine to the UNESCO because of its contribution to ancient
culture and history and that is the most sufficient evidence to prove that the birthplace of
Christianity in the Philippines is none other than in Masawa, Butuan.
 In line with these arguments that have been fought over the years, it must be remembered
that we are dealing solely with a question of fact of whether where was the first mass on the
Philippine soil which was celebrated on Easter Sunday in March 1521 was in Butuan or
Limasawa. There may be a lot of versions of this historical arguments, but, I strongly believe that
the first mass was held in the island of Limasawa and not in Butuan, this is because of the
eyewitnesses namely; Albo, the captain of the Trinidad who had given a lot of contribution in
clarifying the account through his logbook. Pigafetta, the chronicler, explained their expedition
through his writings especially on in his writings and maps about Limasawa.
Lastly, the importance of Butuan in the history of the Philippine is no way dependent
upon its claim to have been the site of the first mass in the Philippines. To reject that claim is in
no way to belittle Butuan’s importance in the history of the Philippines. In fact, the place of
Butuan, in its own right deserves honorable place in the study of Philippine culture and history
for preserving or discovery of history that was not clear and left behind.

Source/s:
PDF
Bernad, M.A. (2002). BUDHI: Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines: A Reexamination of the Evidence. [PDF file]. Retrieved from
https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579. Retrieved on March
17, 2020.
 The Retraction of Rizal
Background
One of the most debatable issues in the Philippine history is the retraction of Rizal, the
letter dated on December 29, 1896 and was said to have been signed by Rizal, it sparked a lot of
queries and intriguing issues among people as to his alleged retraction, which was all about his
return to the Catholic faith and issues about his marriage to Josephine Bracken, and his act of his
disassociation from freemasonry. It was claimed that the retraction document was forged,
however, the experts concluded that it is genuine. The controversy whether the National Hero
actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader.
Affirmative Stand
Jose Rizal has denied freemasonry and retracted his statements against the catholic
church. The document presented to the public is a strong evidence that Rizal had truly withdrawn
in freemasonry and retracted. Addressing the document, the letter of Rizal to his mother received
on Jan. 5, 1893. The letter says that Rizal have been going to the church every Sunday in
Dapitan.
The testimony of the eyewitnesses, Father Balaguer who was with Rizal and presented
the retraction format prepared by Fr. Pi, the superior Jesuit society in the Philippines before the
execution. He stated that on December 29, 1896, day before the execution, Rizal have accepted
and signed the document. On May 18, 1935, Fr. Manuel A. Garcia, C.M. found a document of
Rizal’s Retraction he was the archdiocesan archivist. In the argument of forgery of documents, it
is also reasoned out that what the Arch. and Fr. Pi saw was not the original document of
retraction. The original document, was kept by friars for preservation.
The retraction is a significant document because it established the act of marriage
between Rizal and Bracken. In Dapitan, the condition to them to be married was the retraction,
“as no retraction, no marriage”. In other words, Rizal could never marry Bracken unless he
retracted first. The sworn statement of the eyewitnesses, like Fr. Balaguer agreed that there was
indeed retraction and marriage between Rizal and Bracken. After their marriage, Rizal dedicated
a catholic devotional book to his two sisters, Josefa and Trinidad, as well as his wife, Josephine,
which in his dedication mentioned “to my dear and unhappy wife, Josephine.” Apparently, these
books proof of Catholicism.
Likewise, Rizal was suspected of Rebellion, sedition, and illegal association against
Spanish government. The retraction document isn’t related to what he was accused of and as a
consequence, it does not save him from execution.
With regards to the absence of the documents that would support the validity of the
marriage of Bracken and Rizal and having been not mentioned of Bracken in Rizal’s writings, it
is explained in Garcia’s account in his book, The Great Debate: Rizal Retraction, that Fr.
Manuel Garcia found or discovered the retraction letter including the marriage certificate of
Bracken and Rizal. It is also explained why Josephine was not mentioned in Rizal’s writings as
his wife, it is because they were married before the execution or earlier, their marriage. More so,
Rizal’s Mi Ultimo Adios, the last official writing of Rizal, was written a day or so before the
execution, in other words, before the marriage.
In addition, it is possible that Rizal was not buried in a Roman Catholic cemetery was
because he was already accused as a traitor against the Spaniards even though we know that he is
not. It is logical to think that the Spaniards didn’t want an enemy to be buried with decency and
Rizal was no exception to that.
In conclusion, Rizal truly rejected freemasonry and retracted his affiliations against the Catholic
church for the reason that masonry is the enemy and prohibited by the church and rizal was
starting to return to his church. In this case, Rizal did not fight the Catholic religion, rather, he
fought those who abused their religion and the manner that the friars practiced during that time.
All of these reasons are proved and evidenced by documents presented and found by people as
well as the statements testified by eyewitnesses.
Negative Stand
In contrary, it is believed that the said documents were forged, the fact of document
forgery was revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself. He said that he couldn’t remember whose exact
copy was the document and even Fr. Pi couldn’t verify it in his own statements. The copy of the
retraction paper that was said to be signed by Rizal was even kept secret and was only published
in newspapers who claimed to have seen and read it. When Rizal’s family requested for the
original copy, it was said that is was lost. 39 years later, the original copy was found in the
archdiocesan archives.
Instead of ending doubts, it only caused more arguments and questions in many people
because of significant differences in the text of retraction documents. According to Dr. Ricardo
Pascual, who was given permission by Arch. Nozaleda to examine the document, later concluded
in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented was a forgery. Moreover,
Rizal didn’t particularly say that he retracted freemasonry, he only said that he hated
freemasonry. So how is this strong evidence of withdrawal and retraction? And if the case that
Rizal really retracted how come was still executed if the retraction is enough for sparing the life
of Rizal.
It is surprising in line with the topic of marriage when in fact, there was no document of
marriage between Bracken and Rizal. Consequently, a number of Rizal’s writings and letters
does not mention Josephine as his wife, correspondingly, Rizal did not even call Josephine
“wife” in his last letter of Mi Ultimo Adios which was the last written text of him before his
execution.
More so, if Rizal died as a Roman Catholic, as you have argued, then he should have
been buried properly fitted to him. And as for us, his burial was still concealed with mystery
because it is said that he was buried in a lot out of the Roman Catholic cemetery in Paco, and his
name did not appear in the registry of Roman Catholics. In these circumstances, we could
question if Rizal really die as a Roman catholic.
About the related catholic books that Rizal gave to Josephine and his sister this doesn’t
much weigh as an evidence. As Josephine was still in the catholic faith, it was only fitting that
Rizal gave her catholic related materials. But this doesn’t mean that Rizal have finally retracted
his words against the church.
Moreover, about the forgery of the documents, there are three copies of the documents
about the retraction. The first one indicated a year of 1890, the second one changes it into 189C,
and the final one, the written year is 1896. Even Fr. Balaguer who was an eyewitness has some
inconsistencies in his statements. To conclude the absence of the marriage document of Rizal
and Josephine, and his burial outside the catholic cemetery in Paco shows that Rizal did not
retracted back to the Church. The lack of sufficient evidences proved that Rizal’s retracted was
just a false accusation.
Resolution/Conclusion
It may be true that he retracted and reverted to his faith, but surely whether Rizal died a
Catholic or not, it detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. It is because of what he did
and what he was that we revere Rizal. Catholic or freemason, Rizal is still Rizal whether he
retracted or not, it does not change what he has already done and what his writings has already
achieved.
Recommendation
Lastly, as this argumentation continues, it is recommended that scholars must continue to
look for undiscovered primary sources that may enrich and give additional information to it
content and rediscover possible loopholes of the chronicle of the Philippine Revolution and to
the grand narrative of the national history of the Philippines.
Sources
WEBSITE
Jose Rizal University. (2004). The Retraction: Analysis Rizal’s Retraction. Retrieved from
http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html. Retrieved on March 17, 2020.
 Cavite Mutiny
The Cavite Mutiny was dated way back January 20, 1872 it was all about the brief
uprising of 200 Filipino troops and workers at the Cavite arsenal, which became the excuse for
Spanish repression of the embryonic Philippine nationalist movement. Ironically, the harsh
reaction of the Spanish authorities served ultimately to promote the nationalist cause. The mutiny
was quickly crushed, but the Spanish regime under the reactionary governor Rafael de Izquierdo
magnified the incident and used it as an excuse to clamp down on those Filipinos who had been
calling for governmental reform. A number of Filipino intellectuals were seized and accused of
complicity with the mutineers. After a brief trial, three priests José Burgos, Jacinto Zamora, and
Mariano Gómez (GOMBURZA) were publicly executed. The three subsequently became
martyrs to the cause of Philippine Independence. There are two versions of the Cavite Mutiny the
Spanish and Filipino Version. The accounts of Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera and the account
of Jose Montero y Vidal. The perspectives of the two historians created an controversy. It
sparked issues and arguments whether Cavite Mutiny was a grand conspiracy in attempt of
overthrowing the Spanish government in the Philippines or Cavite Mutiny is not a grand
conspiracy but merely a labor issue. This paper aims to reexamine and weigh over arguments
upon present evidences.
According to Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, this was merely a mutiny of native
Filipino soldiers and laborers of Cavite arsenal against the harsh and indefinite policy of
repressive Governor and Captain-General Rafael de Izquierdo which abolished their privileges of
exemption from paying the annual tribute and from rendering forced labor. Clearly, Filipinos had
great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country. In the event of the loss of
privileges, it was resented by the soldiers and laborers and it was the primary cause of the revolt.
Meanwhile, present discontent with the government spread all over. It was made it clear by Gen.
Izquierdo that there will be no changes in the government and intended to govern the people with
“a crucifix in one hand and a sword in the other”. The peace of the colony was broken and
culminated in the overthrow of the Spanish sovereignty in the Philippine islands. Uprisings and
assassinations in the entire garrison in Cavite were disaffected. The uprising among the soldiers
in Cavite was used as a powerful lever by the Spanish residents and by the friars.
On the other side of the controversy, the Spaniards’ version of Cavite Mutiny, Jose
Montero y Vidal was a Spanish historian and author who wrote the book Historia General de
Filipinas in 1872. His account was centered on how the event was an attempt in overthrowing
the Spanish government in the Philippines. Carlos Maria de la Torre was relieved from his post
with the establishment in Spain of a government which was less radical. Rafael de Izquierdo
assumed control of government. The abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the
Cavite Arsenal of exemption from the tribute was the cause of the insurrection. Underscore the
reason for the revolution, abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite Arsenal such
as exemption from payment of tribute and being employed in Force Labor. The presence of the
native clergy, against the Spanish friars conspired and supported the rebels.
In line with the two accounts having conflicts, I believe on the Filipino version that the
Cavity Mutiny is an event of the history where in it could be considered as a grand conspiracy,
however it is not just a labor issue because of the gathered evidences such as planning of
separatist revolution.
Recommendation
Source/s
Schumacher, J.N. (2011). The Cavite Mutiny Toward a Definitive History. Philippine Studies
Vol. 59, No. 1 Ilustrado, pp. 55-81. Ateneo De Manila University. Retrieved from
www.jstor.org/stable/42635001. Retrieved on