First mass PDF

Preview

Summary

Name : Mervin Bulan UrsalSection : BSIT-1HActivity 3: Discuss ME!Chapter 3: One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History1. How do you understand the text? What is it all about? The claim that Limasawa was the site of the first Catholic Mass in the country h...

Description

Name: Mervin Bulan Ursal Section: BSIT-1H Activity 3: Discuss ME! Chapter 3: One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History

1. How do you understand the text? What is it all about? 

The claim that Limasawa was the site of the first Catholic Mass in the country has long been questioned by some Filipino historians. In Butuan, historian Sonia Zaide described Masao (also Mazaua) as the place of the first mass of Christians. The diary of Antonio Pigafetta, the chronicler of Magellan's voyage, is the basis of Zaide 's assertion. In 1995, Agusan del Norte-Butuan City Congresswoman Ching Plaza filed a bill in Congress questioning the Limasawa hypothesis and claiming the "site of the first mass" it's Butuan. To research the issue and recommend a historical finding, the Philippine Congress referred the matter to the National Historical Institute. Then Dr. Samuel K. Tan, chair of the NHI, reaffirmed Limasawa as the location of the first mass.

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

There are strong reasons for Masawa in Butuan and not for Limasawa in Samar-Leyte as the location of the first Mass celebrated in our land. The eyewitness accounts of the people of that time are incontrovertible: Antonio Pigafetta, the official chronicler of the voyage of Magellan; Gines de Mafra, one of the original crew of Magellan who managed to return to Spain and wrote on what he found in Masawa, and other supporting testimonies. As a people evangelized by the Spanish colonizers in the early 1500s, I hope and pray that this question will be granted true justice and ultimately conclusively settled and laid to rest in the annals of our history. In the first place, it might not be a major deal, a game-changer, but it needs to be granted justice all the same.

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











The National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) panel adopted the recommendation to end the dispute over the first-mass problem and unanimously decided that the facts and arguments raised by the pro-Butuan advocates are not adequate and compelling enough to warrant the NHI (National Historical Institute) to repeal or reverse the decision on the case. It is further supported by the evidence that it was only after 22 years, in 1543, led by the next Spanish expedition. The first recorded Catholic Mass in the Philippines took place on Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521. Father Pedro de Valderrama conducted it along the shores of what was referred to as "Mazaua" in Antonio Pigafetta's papers. There are strong reasons for Masawa in Butuan and not for Limasawa in Samar-Leyte as the location of the first Mass celebrated in our land. The eyewitness accounts of the people of that time are incontrovertible: Antonio Pigafetta, the official chronicler of the voyage of Magellan; Gines de Mafra, one of the original crew of Magellan who managed to return to Spain and wrote on what he found in Masawa; and other supporting testimonies. However, scholarly skepticism that Odoric has ever been to the Philippines. The National Historical Institute, headed by its chair, Ambeth Ocampo, eventually recognized the historical records of Limasawa in Southern Leyte as the site of the first Mass on 31 March 1521. Earlier reports have been verified by a panel of experts that the Easter Sunday Mass celebrated by Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his Spanish contingent on 31 March 1521 took place in Limasawa city, Southern Leyte, where a shrine stands to commemorate the event. It discovered proof and arguments that the Mass was held in Butuanokok as "not adequate and compelling enough". "In a statement released on Wednesday, the panel unanimously decided that the facts and arguments raised by the pro-Butuan advocates are not sufficient and compelling enough to warrant the NHI (National Historical Institute) to repeal or reverse the decision on the case," NHCP chair Rene Escalante said.

4. 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 table is the evidence collected by the researchers in this case study about where the first mass actually takes place? The thesis 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, the pilot of Trinidad, one of Magellan 's ships. He was one of the 18 survivors who came back with Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The other, and the more complete, was the account of Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al mondo (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. After reviewing the key sources from the account of Pigafetta and Albo, and some of the secondary sources used by the researchers as related studies by historians, research was conducted to support our claims about the first Mass. The researcher concluded that the account of Antonio Pigafetta is firmer than Albo because the account of Pigafetta is completer and more backed by facts including the date of the event and also the location. He did not mention the first one in Albo 's account, Mass, but only the planting of the cross on a mountain top from which three islands to the west and southwest can be seen, unlike Pigafetta, he states in his account that on Easter Sunday, March 31, the first Mass is held in Butuan. Pigafetta is often seen as a reliable source since his work became immediately classic in the west, as William Shakespeare, Michel de Montaigne, and Giambattista Vico alluded to the book in their understanding of the modern world. The chronicle of one of the most cited documents by historians who wanted to research the pre-colonial Philippines was that of Pigafetta.

5. Write a “Position Paper” about your viewpoint as to where the First Mass happened. Present related information and evidence in your writing that will strengthen your stand? The first mass was instituted by Christ at the cenacle in Jerusalem. Today, Jewish people are not going out in the streets telling everybody that the institution of the mass happened in their place. Does it make sense for Butuan or Limasawa to quarrel in this conundrum about the first mass in the Philippines two thousand years after? Since today Butuan is much noisier than Limasawa, probably because apparently they are in the losing side, does it make sense to continue its stubborn clamor by not giving up its claim for the first mass of the country when there is a very strong possibility, though lack of historical records, that masses could had been celebrated in the archipelago long before March 21, 1521. Given the presence of the Portuguese in Moluccas during the first quarter of the sixteenth century which provided a good navigational access into the islands of Mindanao and Visayas makes such historical allusion not so difficult to believe. Is it not also highly plausible that when the Magellan’s fleet landed in Homonhon on March 16, 1621 which was Holy Tuesday, a mass could have been already celebrated in there? These questions obviously are very disturbing for us Butuan proponents because there seems to be no strong reason no to accept the plausibility of the above claim. And even if the first mass happened in Butuan, was it worth the trouble of the local historians to tediously do their research in the vast libraries in Europe and America just simply to prove their point which was in fact already twice turned down by the National Historical Institute (NHI)? The prostration of some local historians is heightened by the growing sentiment that recourse to the NHI is practically futile and therefore deserved to be abandoned. There is now an increasing mood of cynicism on the part of some of local historians to rethink whether or not such an endeavor was just a mere product of sudden emotional outburst of losing something which Butuanons are convinced to be rightfully theirs without even weighing the relevance of whether or not that something does have really worth. Does it have a cash value? Indeed, not a few people in the academe and even some clergy of Butuan diocese shared this sentiment. Butuan’s reaction to Limasawa’s claim in fact is intriguing to me because obviously for more than three hundred years this was not exactly the case. We all know that people in Butuan were, in fact, remiss or at least, indifferent to the issue for the first three hundred years after that Easter mass was celebrated in the Philippine archipelago. Prior to Martial Law period, first mass issue was just taken for granted by the majority and that very few people from Butuan bothers the issue. Yet as the time goes by the clamor is getting stronger, evidences seem to refuse to be silence by politics, and that more and more Butuanons are beginning to be aware that the claim in fact is worth pursuing for. But why it has been taken for granted in the first place?

Mazaua is universally believed to be Limasawa, an isle in Leyte in latitude 90 56’ N and longitude 1250 5’ E. Every literature on the circumnavigation makes the ritualistic foot-note that Mazaua is present-day Limasawa. Recent writings tend to skip this ritual altogether, and Mazaua is not mentioned even once in Bergreen’s book. A notable exception is French maritime historian Léonce Peillard who pays no obeisance to this literary tradition. In fact he locates Mazaua in the Genoese Pilot’s 90 N (Pigafettad 314) declaring outright the isle is in Mindanao (Pigafettad 317). These bold as-sertions seem calculated to directly address key points in the Mazaua controversy, which has otherwise been a parochial issue unknown outside the Philippines. If Peillard’s departure from orthodoxy results from an awareness of the issue, he gives no indication, but he is the only navigation historian to hold such a maverick view. Even so Peillard gives no explanation of his operation in arriving at his conclusion that Mazaua is in Mindanao. For our purposes, therefore, his opinion while worthy of note is not all that helpful. In any case, the belief Limasawa is Mazaua—except for a few unreconstructed hold outs for whom the arbitrary powers of the National Historical Institute hold no terror is total. Two Philippine laws enshrine it, Republic Act 2733 and Republic Act 7822. Top Philippine historians, living or long gone, support it. The national historical agency, as the Philippine Historical Commission in 1953 and as the National Historical Institute in 1980 and 1998, has thrice affirmed its validity. In its latest affirmation, the National Historical Institute claims it had “conclusively established” the final truth about Mazaua being Limasawa. (Gancayco 24) It even invokes the Bible for moral support in making its findings. Its former chairman, when this “final truth” was promulgated even advised “unbelievers” to foreswear investigating the issue further— a strange notion for a professional historian to embrace and a dangerous if abhorrent principle to proclaim. A non-navigation historian does not appreciate the gravity of this rule. “Shipwreck” to him is just a word. To the seafarer it is the end of the world, of his dreams of wealth, of his life even. No reason is more compelling to ensure seafarers obey this cardinal rule. The idea Magellan’s fleet anchored east is navigationally untenable and has no historiographical support. One writer says it is an “established” point (Bernad 28) but offers no evidence nor reasoned argument. No eyewit-ness talks of east. The NHI simply insists on its own authority that Magellan’s port was east. We conclude that will all the proofs and evidences from both sides, we decided to believe that it is Masao....