Position Paper

In
Reading

Submitted By: Erica B. Clenuar

Submitted To: Sir Rollee Advincula

September 19, 2019

 Introduction

This position paper discusses the different controversies of the different topic a

topic that would make you confuse, think, question and bring back yourself in the past

history. The purpose of this is to know where will you stand and what would be your

thoughts and insight to the argument/or controversy of the topic.

The following topic that would be discusses in this paper are: First, “The location

of the first mass”—a controversy about the site of the first Mass ever celebrated on

Philippine soil. Second, “The Cavity Mutiny”—a major factor in the awakening of

nationalism among the Filipino. Third, “Jose Rizal’s Retraction” –-a controversy about the

authenticity of Rizal’s retraction documents. Last, “The Katipunan’s Cry” –a historical

event during the struggles for the Philippine independence, with a controversy of, is it

really a ”Cry of Pugad Lawin” or “Cry of Balintawak”.

 The site of the first Mass

On March 31, 1521, an Easter Sunday, Magellan ordered a Mass to be celebrated

which was officiated by Father Pedro Valderrama, the Andalusion chaplain of the fleet,
the only priest then. Conducted near the shores of the island, the First Holy Mass marked
the birth of Roman Catholicism in the Philippines. Colambu and Siaiu were the first
natives of the archipelago, which was not yet named "Philippines" until the expedition of
Ruy Lopez de Villalobos in 1543, to attend the Mass among other native inhabitants.

There is a controversy regarding the site of the first mass ever celebrated in the
Philippine soil. Pigafetta tells us that it was once held on Easter Sunday, the 31 of March
1521, on an island called "Mazaua". Two native chieftains have been in attendance: the
rajah of mazaua and rajah of Butuan. After the mass the party went up a little hill and they
erected a wooden cross upon its summits. The subject of controversy is the identity of the
place which Pigaffeta calls "Mazaua". There are two conflicting claims as to its identity:
one school thought of points to the little island south of Leyte which of the maps is called
limasawa; the other school rejects that claim and points instead to the beach called Masao
at the mount of Agusan river in northern Mindanao near what was the village (now the
city) of Butuan.

Evidences of Controversy

Limasawa

One of the strong evidences of the limasawa was the cross, it was said that
Ferdinand Magellan erected this cross along with his men for the head couple of
limasawa, this cross was erected on the afternoon the same day of the mass.
 Limasawa use James Robertson's English translation of the original Italian
manuscript of Pigaffeta's account that are most reliable for being ''faithful'' to the original
text as duly certified by the University of the Philippines' Department of European
Language.

The measurement of distances between Homonhon and Limasawa between

Limasawa and Cebu, as computed by the pro-Limasawa group, matches or approximates
the delineations made by Pigafetta of the distances between Homonhon and Mazaua and
between Mazaua and Cebu.

Here are some evidences of limasawa:

1. The evidence of Albo’s Log-Book
2. The Evidence of Pigafetta
a) Pigafetta’s testimony regarding the route;
b) The evidence of Pigafetta’s map
c) The two native kings
d) The seven days at “Mazaua”
e) An argument from omission
3. Summary of the evidence of Albo and Pigafetta.
4. Confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi expedition.

Masao/Butuan

Strong evidence of Masao/Butuan is the 1,600 year old 10 Balanghai boats were
found in 1976 near Masao, River which is located in Butuan City. In them this boats was
used as a transportation of the things that can use in the mass.
Here are some evidences of Masao/Butuan:
1. The name of the place
2. The route from Homonhon
3. The latitude position
4. The geographical features
a) The bonfire
b) The balanghai
c) House
d) Abundance of gold
e) A developed settlement

The Stand

By the evidences that been stated I will stand by the Limasawa team because of
the credibility of their evidences than to the Masao/Butuan team.

Positive stand

Limasawa evidence was very similar to what Antonio Pigaffeta state in his
document, so I totally agree with their evidences especially to the cross and to the
geographical location of limasawa that very similar to the geographical location of mazaua
that been state in Antonio Pigaffeta document, so this is the reason why I agree with their
evidences. And also one of the reason why I agree with them because they’re using
James Robertson English translation of the original Italian manuscript of Pigaffeta's
account that are most reliable for being ''faithful'' to the original text as duly certified by
the University of the Philippines' Department of European Language.

Negative Stand

Masoa/Butuan evidence I oppose in them with a reason of, is that they using the
Fabre Ramusio text garbled and altered version of which butuan/masao propagandists
based their research and also about the riverine settlement and situated near agusan
river because in Antonio account they never state the word river instead it’s a word sea.

Final Stand

In my final decision I will stand in limasawa because they give me a satisfactory of

their evidence a solid one that make me believe that the location of the first mass of the
Philippines was really held in their place.
Rizal’s Retraction