Just for the record

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.

             My personal impression of that meeting is that this priest

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!