Venice Roselle R.

Repollo BSBAFM – 1A
GRP – Reading in the Philippine History SAT 8:00 – 11:00 AM

Exercise 3A
“Where Did The First Catholic Mass Take Place In The Philippines?”

AUTHOR’S BACKGROUND

ANTONIO PIGAFETTA
• around 1491 when he was born at Vicenza, Republic of Venice or known now as Italy, and died at the age
of 39-40 around 1531
• He studied astronomy; geography and cartography
• an Italian scholar and explorer from the Republic of Venice
• He traveled with the Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his crew on their First Voyage around
the world
• He was one of the 18 men who returned to Spain in 1522

CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

Along with additional research, the first Catholic Mass in the Philippines was held on March 31, 1521. The
place was located in Southern Leyte which is popularly known as the birthplace of the Church in the Philippines.
Controversies occurred as to where the mass really took place between Limawasa and Butuan/Masao. In 1872, a
monument to commemorate the site of the first mass in the Philippines was erected in Butuan and in 1974, the
people in Butuan asked the Philippine Historical Committee to rehabilitate the monument or place a marker on
the site. Based on this objection, the monument was re-erected but the marble slab stating it was the site of the
first mass was removed. Zaide identified Masao in Butuan as the location of the first mass. The basis of this claim
is the diary of Antonio Pigafetta, the chronicle of Magellan’s voyage. On the first hand, pieces of evidence that
point to Limasawa as the place where the mass happened are the following:
• Jaime de Veyra stated that the first mass was celebrated in Limasawa and not Butuan.
• Historian Pablo Pastells stated by footnote to Francisco Colin’s Labor Evangelica that Magellan did not
go to Butuan but from Limasawa to Cebu.
• Francisco Albo, pilot of Magellan’s flagship, did not mention the first mass but he wrote that they were
erected across a mountain that overlooked three islands to the west and the southwest which fits the
southern end of Limasawa. James Robertson agreed on a footnote that “Mazua” was actually Limasawa.
In the authentic account of Pigafetta, the port was not in Butuan but on an island named “Mazua”.
• Father Bernard studied all Pigafetta’s maps, which place Mazua at the southern tip of a larger island in
Leyte. This was checked with the modern maps that show that this jibes with Limasawa and not Butuan.

On the other hand, shreds of evidence that point to Butuan or Masao are as follows:
• The name of the place
• The route from “Humunu” or Homonhon according to Pigafetta’s testimony
• The latitude position
• The geographical features such as bonfires, the balanghai, house, an abundance of gold, and a developed
settlement

The Evidence of Pigafetta

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

The native Filipino soldiers and laborers assigned at the Cavite arsenal had already enjoyed for a long
time the privilege of being exempted from paying taxes and for rendering forced labor before the arrival of
Governor-General Izquierdo who intends to rule the colony with an iron fist. But on their payday, January 20,
1872, they found out that it was deducted; it angered them so much. Due to such resentment, given that they have
the same sympathies, agreed to uprise as a sign of their strong objection to the policy imposed on them. They
took control of the fort by killing some military officials assigned there. Afterward, they thought that some
soldiers will join them like the 7th infantry company as an alliance against Spain, but they were deceived. The
mutiny was suppressed immediately the next day through General Ginoves. And as an urgent response to
eliminating or eradicating the possible insurrections after it, Izquierdo ordered right away an outright
investigation. Although the movement for the secularization of the clergy is quite not relevant to the mutiny,
Izquierdo came up with making stories linking them to the uprising through Saldua that the three priests were
plotting a revolution to remove the Spanish government from the land.
The movement for the secularization of the clergy led by Fr. Burgos was peaceful and not violent; it was
somehow diplomatic if the friars were willing to hear them but would not, and so they were just fighting through
words and in writing. These enmities between them were also a headache to the Colonial Minister because the
origin of the enmity was the order from Spain, there, he must protect the friars and impose the said order. Although
the Archbishop Manila, Msgr. Martinez sided with the seculars by writing to the regent of Spain and of pleading
for clemency to Izquierdo, it has to no avail. Izquierdo succeeded to execute them on the bases of mere
conspiracies.
The account of Plauchut was a detailed sequence of events presenting the cause of the mutiny, as well as
its suppression. While the account of Vidal and Izquierdo was based on conspiracies, even Archbishop Martinez
was never convinced of such evidence. Then, the account of Tavera is a complement to the version of Plauchut;
these two versions are not suspicious because they’re not Spaniards, Plauchut is a Frenchman, and Tavera is a
Filipino historian. And if analyzed carefully, I would agree that the uprising was just a mere mutiny and has
nothing to do with the seculars. It was only out of the resentment of people whose privileges were taken from
them.
On the other hand, during the execution, the people who were present were in despair knowing that the
priests were of no crime worthy of such disgraceful execution. When the friars noticed the strange change in the
behavior of those present, showing their sympathy and solidarity with the priests, they fled in fear that they might
become violent. Such behavior was rarely noticed, it seems like their eyes were opened that they were being
persecuted face-to-face. Consequently, the aftermath of the execution was not suppression, but an awakening.
The draconian rule, the abuses, and injustices were about to end at that moment. Resentment and anger began to
occupy some space in the hearts of the Filipino people, not for revenge, but justice and independence.

CONTENT ANALYSIS
1872 – Cavite Mutiny and GOMBURZA
• Spanish Perspective
o Jose Montero y Vidal
➢ The event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government
➢ Criticized as woefully biased
➢ The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the Laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption
from the tribute cause the insurrection, according to some
➢ Authorities received anonymous communications with the information that a great
uprising would break out against the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite left for the
South, and that all would be assassinated including the friars. But nobody gave
importance to these notices.
➢ Principal leaders – meeting at D. Joaquin Pardo de Taverda or in Jacinto Zamora
o Governor General Rafael Izquierdo
➢ Secularization of the parishes
➢ Instigators encouraged rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice of having
obliged the worker in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute
➢ Filipinos wan to revolt to install a new hari in the likes of Zamora or Burgos
 ➢ In Spaniard’s account, the event of 1872 was premediated they allegedly plan to
overthrow officials including the friars, the signal was identified the rockets fired from
Intramuros (fireworks display in Sampaloc for the Feast of Virgin of Loreto)
➢ February 17, 1872 – GOMBURZA executed

• Filipino Perspective
o Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera
➢ They revolt against the Spaniard because of the unfair treatment they experience during
the reign of Gov. Izquierdo, abolishing their privileges and prohibiting the establishment
of schools for arts and trades
➢ Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite mutiny as a way to address their other
issues by blowing out of proportion the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the
Central Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and direction and management of
educational institutions
o Edmund Plauchut
➢ The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their dominance,
which had started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos. They
showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by Filipinos to
overthrow the Spanish government.

GomBurZa
• Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, Jacinto Zamora
• Spanish clergy connected to the priests to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle the movement of
secular priests who desired to have their own parishes instead of getting merely assistants to the regular
friars.