ONCE in a
while, you get a jolt when you meet someone who
would make you consider something that you have ignored
up to now,
considering it as trivial or with low priority, but which
happens to
have a solid claim for the historical truth and is
therefore asking
not only for due attention but also for real justice. It
is a case of
a historical distortion or error that is crying for
correction.
This happened
to me recently when I visited Butuan for
some pastoral work and incidentally met Fr. Joesilo
Amalla, a diocesan
priest who has been making many years of research about
where the
first Mass in the Philippines took place. Some mutual
friends arranged
our meeting.
He handed me
his 200-page manuscript of his work for me to
review and told me some relevant tidbits of information
about his
research as well as showed me some of the reference
materials he used.
is not motivated by anything other than trying to
establish the
historical objectivity of the issue. I did not sense any
ulterior
motive, much less the glorification of his native Butuan
nor of his
own self which I tried to discern. Neither did I feel any
traces of
personal bias or cultural, social or political
partisanship in our
discussion. He had that certain detachment proper of an
objective
researcher.
I hope and pray that this issue be given real justice and
finally
conclusively resolved and laid to rest in the annals of
our history as
a people who were evangelized by the Spanish colonizers
in the early
1500s. It may not be a big issue in the first place, a
game-changer,
but just the same it deserves to be given justice.
The arguments
for Masawa in Butuan and not Limasawa in
Samar-Leyte as the site of the first Mass celebrated in
our country
are strong. There are incontrovertible eyewitness
accounts of the
people of that time: Antonio Pigafetta, the official
chronicler of the
Magellan’s voyage; Gines de Mafra, one of Magellan’s
original crew who
managed to return to Spain and reported about what he
found in Masawa;
and other supporting testimonies.
Pigafetta in
his account specifically wrote: “That island
was called Butuan and Calagan. The name of the first king
is Raia
Colambu and the second Raia Siaui…It is twenty-five
leagues from
Acquada, and is called Masaua.”
Also the differences with respect to the recorded
latitudinal
locations of Masawa and Limasawa as reported by the
different
chroniclers of that time favor the former more than the
latter. It can
be argued that the accuracy of these estimations, given
the facilities
of that time, may not be that precise. Besides, there can
also be
strong motives for making intentionally wrong latitudinal
locations to
mislead enemies and competitors.
Another argument forwarded is that at that time Masawa in
Butuan had
some primacy over Limasawa since Masawa had a safe and
rich harbor
while Limasawa did not have one at that time.
But as time and events passed, the name Masawa became
equated with
Limasawa. How this came about is an interesting piece of
tortuous
historical study that certainly would require deep and
comprehensive
investigation and analysis. Let us hope that our
historians can come
up with a credible consensus as to which is which with
respect to this
issue.
Not to be neglected, of course, is the role of politics
and public
opinion in pursuing the historical truth of this matter.
Establishing
the historical truth is never an easy affair, since a lot
of
interpretation and subjective reading of recorded facts
and events can
vary widely.
Just the same it is a worthwhile effort to sort out all
these varying
and conflicting claims so that we can celebrate the 500
years of
Christianity in our country come 2021 more meaningfully.
May the truth
about this issue come out finally!
No comments:
Post a Comment