Comia, Sandara Faith M.

REACTION PAPER
BSA 1.1A

The Site of the First Mass

The site of the first mass was held on March 31, 1521, Easter Sunday. Father Pedro
Valderrama led the Ferdinand Magellan voyage along the coast of what Antonio Pigafetta
named to as Mazaua in his diaries. Many historians today concur that this location is Limasawa
off the point of Southern Leyte, as does the government. Butuan was thought to have hosted
the first mass until at least the 19th century, according to some, while Limasawa was thought to
have hosted it. Some people continue to hold this view, claiming that the first mass was really
celebrated in Limasawa, Butuan, or Massao. To end the conflict of the first mass issue, the
national historical commission of the Philippines panel adapted the recommendation and
unanimously agreed that the evidence and arguments presented by the pro-Butuan and
limasawa advocates are not sufficient and convincing enough to warrant the repeal or reversal
of the ruling on the case by the National Historical Institute. It is further strengthen by the
evidence that it was only after 22 years, in 1543-when a Spanish expedition.

And in the site of the first mass there is information “where the first mass was really held”
and “which direction Ferdinand Magellan’s expedition go”? I think and according to the
information I read in the internet and heard to the group 1 report, the first mass in the
Philippines was held at Limasawa. And in order to know where the first mass is was held we
need to know first where Ferdinand Magellan expedition landed did. And there are many
supporting evidences that the first mass happened there. Like those: Francisco Albo’s diary
which state that Magellan‘s is going towards the southern ends of Limasawa. Anthonio
Pigaffeta’s testimony regarding the route of the expedition. Francisco and Pigaffeta are
incredible sources because they part of Magellan’s expedition.

And last the pieces of evidence in Limasawa is more convincing and it has many more
incredible source than the Butuan. Also according to the Republic act 2733 and the National
Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) was held at Limasawa.
 The Cavite Mutiny

Cavite Mutiny, (Jan. 20,

1872), brief uprising of
Filipino troops and workers
at the Cavite
arsenal, which became the
excuse for Spanish repression of
the embryonic Philippine
nationalist
movement. Ironically, the harsh
reaction of the Spanish
authorities served ultimately to
promote
the nationalist cause. The
mutiny was quickly crushed,
but the Spanish regime
under the
reactionary governor Rafael de
Izquierdo magnified the
incident and used it as an
excuse to
clamp down on those Filipinos
who had been calling for
governmental reform. A number
of
Filipino intellectuals were
seized and accused of
complicity with the mutineers.
After a brief
trial, three priests José Burgos,
Jacinto Zamora, and Mariano
Gómez were publicly executed.
The three subsequently became
martyrs to the cause of
Philippine independence. The
Martyrdom
of the three priest which is
the collective name of the
three martyred priest, tagged
as the
masterminds of the Cavite
mutiny. The GOMBURZA
were prominent Filipino priest
charge with
treason and sedition. The
Spanish clergy connected
the priest to the mutiny as
part of a
conspiracy to stifle the
movement of secular priest who
desired to have their own
parishes
instead of being assistants to the
regular friars. First, there was
dissatisfaction among the
workers
of the arsenal as well as the
members of the native army
after their privileges were
drawn back
by Gen. Izquierdo. Second,
Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid
and strict policies that made the
Filipinos move and turn
away from Spanish
government out of disgust.
Third, the Central
Cavite Mutiny, (Jan. 20,
1872), brief uprising of
Filipino troops and workers
at the Cavite
arsenal, which became the
excuse for Spanish repression of
the embryonic Philippine
nationalist
movement. Ironically, the harsh
reaction of the Spanish
authorities served ultimately to
promote
the nationalist cause. The
mutiny was quickly crushed,
but the Spanish regime
under the
reactionary governor Rafael de
Izquierdo magnified the
incident and used it as an
excuse to
clamp down on those Filipinos
who had been calling for
governmental reform. A number
of
Filipino intellectuals were
seized and accused of
complicity with the mutineers.
After a brief
trial, three priests José Burgos,
Jacinto Zamora, and Mariano
Gómez were publicly executed.
The three subsequently became
martyrs to the cause of
Philippine independence. The
Martyrdom
of the three priest which is
the collective name of the
three martyred priest, tagged
as the
masterminds of the Cavite
mutiny. The GOMBURZA
were prominent Filipino priest
charge with
treason and sedition. The
Spanish clergy connected
the priest to the mutiny as
part of a
conspiracy to stifle the
movement of secular priest who
desired to have their own
parishes
instead of being assistants to the
regular friars. First, there was
dissatisfaction among the
workers
of the arsenal as well as the
members of the native army
after their privileges were
drawn back
by Gen. Izquierdo. Second,
Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid
and strict policies that made the
Filipinos move and turn
away from Spanish
government out of disgust.
Third, the Central
Cavite Mutiny, (Jan. 20,
1872), brief uprising of
Filipino troops and workers
at the Cavite
arsenal, which became the
excuse for Spanish repression of
the embryonic Philippine
nationalist
movement. Ironically, the harsh
reaction of the Spanish
authorities served ultimately to
promote
the nationalist cause. The
mutiny was quickly crushed,
but the Spanish regime
under the
reactionary governor Rafael de
Izquierdo magnified the
incident and used it as an
excuse to
clamp down on those Filipinos
who had been calling for
governmental reform. A number
of
Filipino intellectuals were
seized and accused of
complicity with the mutineers.
After a brief
trial, three priests José Burgos,
Jacinto Zamora, and Mariano
Gómez were publicly executed.
The three subsequently became
martyrs to the cause of
Philippine independence. The
Martyrdom
of the three priest which is
the collective name of the
three martyred priest, tagged
as the
masterminds of the Cavite
mutiny. The GOMBURZA
were prominent Filipino priest
charge with
treason and sedition. The
Spanish clergy connected
the priest to the mutiny as
part of a
conspiracy to stifle the
movement of secular priest who
desired to have their own
parishes
instead of being assistants to the
regular friars. First, there was
dissatisfaction among the
workers
of the arsenal as well as the
members of the native army
after their privileges were
drawn back
by Gen. Izquierdo. Second,
Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid
and strict policies that made the
Filipinos move and turn
away from Spanish
government out of disgust.
Third, the Central
A short revolt of Filipino soldiers and employees at the Cavite arsenal on January 20,
1872, known as the Cavite Mutiny, served as a pretext for Spanish persecution of the fledgling
Philippine nationalist movement. Ironically, the aggressive response of the Spanish government
eventually helped to advance the nationalist cause. Although the rebellion was promptly put
down, the Spanish administration, led by the conservative governor Rafael de Izquierdo,
exaggerated the episode and used it as justification to crack down on Filipinos who had been
advocating for political change.

A number of intellectuals from the Philippines were detained and charged with working
with the mutineers. Three priests, José Burgos, Jacinto Zamora, and Mariano Gómez, were
executed in front of the public after a brief trial. Following that, the three were martyred for the
cause of Philippine independence. The three priests collectively known as The Martyrdom of the
Three Priest are thought to be the brains behind the rebellion in Cavite. The GOMBURZA were
well-known priests from the Philippines accused of treason and sedition. In an effort to quell the
movement of secular priest who wanted to establish their own parishes rather than serve as
helpers to the regular friars, the Spanish church linked the priest to the rebellion.

First, once Gen. Izquierdo restored their rights, there was discontent among the arsenal
employees as well as the native army soldiers. Second, Gen. Izquierdo imposed tough and
repressive rules, which caused the Filipinos to flee the Spanish rule out of disdain. Third,
instead of conducting an inquiry into what actually happened, the Central Government relied on
accounts from Izquierdo and the friars as well as popular perception. Fourth, the Central
Government of Spain made the decision to strip the friars of the authority to interfere in
governmental issues in 1872, signaling the end of the joyful times for them. The execution of
GOMBURZA was a mistake on the part of the Spanish government because it ended the ill will
among the Filipino people and motivated Filipino patriots to demand reforms and eventually
independence. Fifth, Filipinos at the time were active participants and responded to what they
perceived as injustices.

The path to freedom was treacherous and difficult, and many patriots—named and
unnamed—lost their lives in the effort. We shouldn't forget the hardships our ancestors endured
before we succeeded. May we be more historically literate while we enjoy our freedom so that
we might have a better future.

Jose Rizal’s Retraction

The historical issue surrounding Jose Rizal's retraction. Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo are two works written by Jose Rizal. The most important thing he accomplished
via his books was to make Filipinos aware of their suffering at the hands of Spaniards. The
novel's opening sequence revealed the extent of clerics' political power. In other words, the
Catholic church may be condemned for this. There is debate regarding a retraction that Rizal
penned before his death, in which he walked back some of the statements he had made about
his works.

Rizal’s retraction letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed by the
National Hero himself. It stated: “I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was
born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words,
writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic
Church.” The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only
lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing
groups agree with each other.

As a fellow Filipino, I formed the opinion that Dr. Jose P. Rizal had not withdrawn his
own works and publications. I truly think that our National Hero infused his writings with beliefs
during the lengthy process of authoring the works that helped to bring about our freedom.

The retraction paper, rumored to have been found in 1935, was not in Rizal's
handwriting, according to Ricardo Pascual, author of Rizal Beyond The Grave, who came to this
conclusion after examining six significant documents of Rizal. A retraction, according to Senator
Rafael Palma, a famous Mason and the former president of the University of the Philippines, is
inconsistent with Rizal's character and mature ideas. The retraction narrative, in his words, was
a "pious fraud."

Some historians mention the testimony of 11 eyewitnesses who were there when Rizal
wrote his retraction, inscribed his name in a Catholic prayer book, repeated Catholic prayers,
and was seen by many people kissing the crucifix prior to his death. Fr. Rizal, a great-
grandnephew of Rizal, According to Marciano Guzman, 12 historians and authors, including
Aglipayan bishops, Masons, and anti-clericals, as well as 5 eyewitnesses, 10 competent
witnesses, 7 newspapers, and Rizal himself, all four of his confessions were verified. One of the
witnesses, who was held in great regard by Rizal for his honesty, was the president of the
Spanish Supreme Court at the time of his notarized testimony.

Guzman attributes the denial of retraction to "the blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of
some Masons. UP professor emeritus of history Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a plain
unadorned fact of history" because of what he sees as the strength this direct evidence have in
the light of the historical method, in contrast to merely circumstantial evidence.

Despite several arguments supporting the veracity of the retraction letter that our
National Hero sent, I personally think that he didn't withdraw. Why would this authentication
letter disappear at that time and then return 39 years later is a mystery if it is considered to be a
significant document. Even merely to complete his writings and publications, never alone the
financial strain he went through, Rizal endured years of fight for his own ideas.
 Why would Rizal withdraw since he is certain that his execution will still take place even
if he signed the retraction document? Rizal was charged with engaging in filibusterous
propaganda, an offense that carries a death sentence under Spanish law. Even though they
were still active members of the church, the three priests who were garroted years earlier
experienced the same fate; they were still viewed as disobedient and did not get a proper
funeral.

The Mi Ultimo Adios and letters are not indicative of a conversion by Rizal, nor does it
even suggest that he was religiously unstable during his final hours at Fort Santiago. Contrary to
Father Balaguer's assertion that Rizal was unaware of the retraction even in the afternoon and
was asking for the formula, he never brought it up in the evening when his sister and mother
came.

Our awareness of nationalism was awakened by Dr. Jose P. Rizal. He had previously
desired death, so he became focused on the idea that he would die for the sake of his nation.
Even all of Rizal's friends do not think that he has written a retraction since his character speaks
so loudly. Like them, I was of the opinion that he had not recanted before dying. As a fellow
Filipino who loves his country, I have always shared the convictions and teachings of our
National Hero. Whatever new information concerning the reality of the retraction dispute
surrounding Rizal may reveal, it does not diminish his glory as a Filipino.

The Katipunans Cry

The Cry of Balintawak took place on August 26, 1896. The Cry is recognized as the
turning point in Philippine history when the people of the Philippines finally rejected Spanish
colonial rule. The people watched with tears in their eyes as one guy tore their cedulas into bits.
The Cry of Balintawak, a crucial period in Philippine history, has been a topic of controversy for
more than a century. The principal staging area of the cry took place in Balintawak on August
26, 1896, according to Pio Valenzuela's report, "The Cry of Pugad Lawin," who also happened
to be an eyewitness to the tragedy. He presented this account when the details of the situation
were still vivid in his mind. In contrast, he wrote his Memoirs of the Revolution without reviewing
the documented sources of the Philippine Revolution and claimed that the "Cry" took place on
August 23, 1896 at Pugad Lawin as he was becoming older and his memory was failing.
 According to Pio Valenzuela's account, Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio
Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, and Aguedo del Rosario found refuge for the first time at Balintawak.
On August 20, 1896, I arrived after the first five on August 19. 500 Katipunan members met for
the first time on August 22, 1896, in Apolonio Samson's home and yard in Kangkong. Apolonio
Samson, Ramon Bernardo, Alejandro Santiago, Briccio Pantas, and others were also present.
Nothing was decided upon or authorized; this was only a discussion of ideas. On August 23,
1986, about 1,000 Katipunan members congregated in Pugad Lawin and held a lengthy
discussion and deliberation in Juan Ramos' home, storeroom, and yard. Juan Ramos is
Melchora Aquino's son. The topic of discussion was whether or not the uprising against the
Spanish government should start on August 29. One and only Teodora Plata [Bonifacio's
brother-in-law-Z] opposed and fought the war. Enrique Cipriano, Alfonso Pacheco, Tomas
Remigio, Sinforoso San Pedro, and other notables were present at this meeting in addition to
the individuals already named. Several attendees tore up their cedula certificates and shouted,
"Long live the Philippines!" during the tumultuous gathering.

Whether it should be referred to as the "Cry of Pugad Lawin" or the "Cry of Balintawak" is still a
point of contention among historians today. The August 23, 1896, "Cry of Pugad Lawin" is not
historically accurate. There is a lack of affirmative documentation and supporting information
from the witness. Pio Valenzuela's lone eyewitness testimony is insufficient to support and
confirm a contested historical issue. The way that Valenzuela describes his claims is highly
contradictory. However, this incident marked the start of the Philippine uprising against Spain,
which was followed by a number of bloody encounters between Spanish muskets and Filipino
bolos and spears. These incidents strengthened the nation's unity and stoked the Filipinos'
"thirst" for independence. The Philippine Revolution began in 1896 with the Cry of the Rebellion
in Pugad Lawin, which eventually resulted in the nation's independence in 1898.