Bryce Anthony L.

Apit

1. Exercise 3.2
Page 64. Identify what is being described in each of the following sentences.

1. Samar Island
2. Palmito
3. Humunu
4. Homonhon
5. Acquada da li buoniSegnialli
6. Cenato, Hiunanghan, Ibusson, Abarien
7. Baroto
8. Raia Colambu and Raia Siaui
9. Zubu
10. Catighan

Page 65. Give a concise explanation/discussion on the following items.

1. How do you understand the text? What is it all about?

- A number of Filipino historians have, for a long time, cast doubt on the claim that
Limasawa was the location of the first Catholic Mass to be celebrated in the
nation. Sonia Zaide, a historian who worked in Butuan, identified Masao
(sometimes spelled Mazaua) as the location of the first gathering of Christians.
The statement that Zaide makes is founded on the journal that was kept by
Antonio Pigafetta, who was the recorder of Magellan's journey. Ching Plaza, a
congresswoman representing Agusan del Norte and Butuan City, submitted a bill
to Congress in 1995 that called into doubt the Limasawa theory and declared
that Butuan was the "place of the first mass." The Philippine Congress sent the
topic to the National Historical Institute so that it might do study on the matter
and provide a recommendation on a historical finding. After then, the chairman
of the NHI, Dr. Samuel K. Tan, confirmed that Limasawa was the site of the First
Mass.

2. What is your stand about the site of the First Mass?

- There are good reasons why the first Mass in our country was held in Masawa,
which is in Butuan, and not in Limasawa, which is in Samar-Leyte. Antonio
Pigafetta, the official recorder of Magellan's journey, Gines de Mafra, a member
of Magellan's crew who made it back to Spain and wrote about what he saw in
Masawa, and other people who were there at the time all gave accounts that
can't be disputed. As a person from a country that was converted to Christianity
by Spanish colonists in the early 1500s, I hope and pray that this question will be
given real justice, finally settled, and put to rest in the history books. First of all, it
might not be a big deal or a game-changer, but it still needs to be taken care of.
Bryce Anthony L. Apit

3. Cite evidences which would suggest that the First Mass happened in Masua (Butuan)
and Limasawa (Southern Leyte).
- The panel of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP)
adopted the recommendation to end the dispute over the first-mass problem
and decided unanimously that the facts and arguments brought up by the pro-
Butuan advocates are not sufficient and convincing enough to warrant the NHI
(National Historical Institute) to repeal or reverse the decision on the case. The
panel also adopted the recommendation to end the dispute over the first-mass
problem. It wasn't until 22 years later, in 1543, that the second Spanish
expedition was launched, which is another piece of evidence that lends
credibility to this theory.
- On Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521, there was the first Catholic Mass that was
written down. Father Pedro de Valderrama led it along the shores of a place that
Antonio Pigafetta's papers called "Mazaua."
- There are some compelling arguments in favor of Masawa, which is located in
Butuan, rather than Limasawa, which is found in Samar-Leyte, as the site of the
first Mass that was performed in our country. Incontestable are the testimonials
of those who lived during that time period, including Antonio Pigafetta, the
official recorder of Magellan's journey; Gines de Mafra, an original member of
Magellan's crew who made it back to Spain and wrote about what he discovered
in Masawa; and other supporting testimonies.
- However, there is academic disagreement over whether or not Odoric has ever
visited the Philippines. In the end, the National Historical Institute, which is led
by its chair Ambeth Ocampo, agreed with the historical documents that
indicated Limasawa in Southern Leyte was the location of the first Mass on
March 31, 1521. This decision was made by the National Historical Institute.
- Earlier reports have been verified by a panel of experts as being accurate by
stating that the Easter Sunday Mass that was celebrated by the Portuguese
explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his Spanish contingent on March 31, 1521 took
place in Limasawa city, Southern Leyte, where a shrine stands to commemorate
the event. Magellan and his Spanish contingent were on their way to the
Philippines from Portugal at the time. It found the evidence and arguments that
the Mass was held at Butuan to be "insufficient and not convincing enough."

4. How credible is this account in explaining the site of the First mass?
- Finding out when the first mass was held is what the researchers are focusing on.
The researchers in this case study gathered the information presented in the
table to determine where the initial mass is held. The only two main sources
used by historians in pinpointing the site of the first Mass are examined in this
thesis. Francisco Albo, the ship's navigator on Trinidad, maintained a journal of
the voyage. Among the 18 survivors of the Victoria's voyage was Sebastian
Bryce Anthony L. Apit

Elcano. First Journey Into The World by Antonio Pigafetta was a more thorough
description of Antonio Pigafetta's journey (First Voyage around the World). As a
member of the Magellan expedition, Pigafetta was able to observe the events of
the first Mass firsthand. Research was undertaken to back up our statements
regarding the first Mass after analyzing the primary materials from the testimony
of Pigafetta and Albo, as well as some secondary sources utilized by the
researchers as relevant studies by historians. There are more facts to support up
Antonio Pigefetta's narrative, including the date and place of the occurrence,
than there are in Albo's, according to the researcher. While Pigafetta writes that
the first Mass is performed on Easter Sunday, March 31, in Butuan, Albo just
mentions that the cross was planted on a mountaintop overlooking three islands
to the west and southwest. Since the likes of William Shakespeare, Michel de
Montaigne, and Giambattista Vico all used Pigafetta's work as a foundation for
their knowledge of the contemporary world, his work is often cited as a
reputable source. Historians researching the pre-colonial Philippines often turn
to Pigafetta's account of one of the most important documents in the country's
history.

5. How do the evidences presented in the text help you understand the controversy on
the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines?
-
Bryce Anthony L. Apit

Page 66. Write a two-page position paper about your viewpoint as to where the First
Mass happened. Present related information and evidences in your writing that will
strengthen your stand.

- Christ began the practice of celebrating the Eucharist for the first time in the
Temple in Jerusalem. At this point in time, Jewish people do not go out into the
streets and inform everyone that the Jewish people were the ones who first
established the mass. It has been two thousand years since the first mass was
celebrated in the Philippines. Does it make sense for Butuan or Limasawa to
argue about who was responsible for it? Since Butuan is currently much louder
than Limasawa, most likely because it appears that they are on the losing side,
one might ask whether it makes sense for Butuan to continue its obstinate
clamor by not giving up its claim for the first mass of the country when there is a
very strong possibility, despite the lack of historical records, that masses could
have been celebrated in the archipelago a long time before March 21, 1521.
Given that the Portuguese were present in the Moluccas during the first quarter
of the sixteenth century, when this historical reference took place, which offered
a favorable nautical access into the islands of Mindanao and Visayas, this
historical allusion is not that difficult to accept. Is it not also extremely probable
that when the Magellan's ship arrived at Homonhon on March 16, 1621, which
was Holy Tuesday, a mass may have already been performed in there? If so, this
raises another question: why is it not highly likely? These considerations are
clearly quite troubling for those of us who support the Butuan currency since
there does not seem to be any compelling reason not to accept the veracity of
the assertion made above.

At the analysis can provide information in Jerusalem, Christ began the first mass.
Today, Jewish individuals aren't going door-to-door to notify everyone that the
mass was instituted in their neighborhood. Is it logical for Butuan or Limasawa to
argue over this issue of the Philippines' first mass two thousand years later?
Does it make sense for Butuan to keep up its clamor for the country's first mass
since there is a very strong possibility, despite the lack of historical records, that
masses were celebrated throughout the archipelago long before March 21, 1521,
despite the fact that there are no records to back this up? Considering how close
Mindanao and Visayas were to each other because of the Portuguese presence
in Moluccas during the first quarter of the sixteenth century makes it not that
difficult to think that such historical allusions are accurate today Isn't it possible
that a mass had already been held when Magellan's ship arrived at Homonhon
on Holy Tuesday, March 16, 1621? Because there seems to be no solid reason to
reject the plausibility of the aforementioned statement, these questions are
quite upsetting to us Butuan supporters.
Bryce Anthony L. Apit

I find Butuan's response to Limasawa's assertion interesting since it is clear that

this was not the case for more than three centuries. The first three hundred
years after Easter mass was celebrated throughout the Philippine archipelago,
people in Butuan were in reality neglectful or at least unconcerned to the
problem. Only a few residents of Butuan bothered to discuss the first mass
problem prior to the Martial Law era. There is an increasing number of
Butuanons who are becoming aware that their claim is worth pursuing as time
passes; evidence seems to be refusing to be silenced by politicians. Is there a
reason why this has been taken for granted in the first place?

According to the majority of researchers, Mazaua is the Leyte island of

Limasawa, which is at latitude 90 56' N and longitude 1250 5' E. The ritualistic
footnote that Mazaua is today's Limasawa appears in every piece of
circumnavigation literature. Newer works tend to avoid this ceremony entirely,
and Bergreen's book does not even mentionMazaua once. French nautical
historian Léonce Peillard is a prominent exception to this literary tradition in that
he refuses to abide by it. According to the Genoese Pilot's 90 N (Pigafettad 314),
the island of Mazaua is located in the province of Mindanao (Pigafettad 317). To
the outside world, Mazaua has been nothing more than a local concern, and
these forceful statements seem to be aimed squarely at addressing critical
issues. No one else in the field of navigation history has such an outlandish
position. Peillard doesn't provide any evidence that he's aware of the matter. No
explanation is given for how Peillard came to the conclusion that Mazaua is
located inMindanao. Although his perspective is worth paying attention to for
our needs, it doesn't do anything for us.

In any case, everyone thinks Limasawa is Mazaua, except for a few people who
haven't changed their minds and don't care what the National Historical Institute
says. It is written into the Republic Act 2733 and the Republic Act 7822 of the
Philippines. Top Philippine historians, both living and dead, agree with it. In
1953, it was called the Philippine Historical Commission, and in 1980 and 1998, it
was called the National Historical Institute. All three times, it reaffirmed that it
was a legitimate organization. In its most recent statement, the National
Historical Institute said that it had "conclusively established" that Mazaua is
really Limasawa. (Gancayco 24) It even uses the Bible to show that what it says is
right. When this "final truth" was announced, the group's former chairman told
"unbelievers" not to look into the matter any further. It was a strange idea for a
professional historian to agree with, and it was a dangerous and repulsive
principle to say.
Bryce Anthony L. Apit

A historian who doesn't study navigation won't understand how important this
rule is. "Shipwreck" is just a word for him. For the sailor, it's the end of the
world, his hopes of getting rich, and even his life. There is no more important
reason to make sure sailors follow this cardinal rule. The idea that Magellan's
fleet anchored to the east is both impossible to navigate and not supported by
history. One writer says it's a "settled" point (Bernad 28), but they don't give any
proof or a good reason. No eyewitnesses talk about the east. The NHI just says
that Magellan's port was east because it knows that to be true.

I've decided to believe that it's Masao based on all the proofs and evidences
from both sides.

2. Exercise 3.3
Page 77-A. Identify what is being described in the following sentences.

1. April 4, 1871
2. Fernando de Rojas
3. Francisco Saldua
4. Mariano Gomez
5. Insurrection, uprising, revolution

Page 77-B. Write True if the statement is correct, otherwise, write False.

1. True
2. False
3. False
4. True
5. False

Page 78. Give a concise explanation/discussion on the following items.

1. How do you understand the word “Mutiny’?

- A mutiny occurs when a group of individuals refuses to follow instructions and
attempts to seize authority from the one in charge. Internal military insurrection
against a superior army is the most popular use of the phrase, although it may
refer to any kind of rebellion against a superior power.

2. How does Governor Ge. Izquerdo describe Cavite Mutiny compared from the version
of Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera?
- I have come to the conclusion that after weighing all of the information and
proofs presented by both sides, I have chosen to think that Masao is the culprit.
According to the narrative written by Gov. General Rafael Ezquierdo, the Cavite
Mutiny was an insurrection, rebellion, and revolution against the injustices of the
Bryce Anthony L. Apit

government for demanding the employees at the Cavite Arsenal to pay tribute
taxes and for having them subjected to forced labor. In a nutshell, he said that
the Cavite Mutiny was a plot to topple and get rid of the Spanish government
since the Filipinos were seen to have battled for their freedom.

3. What does the account of Jose Montero y Vidal tell us? To which version does this
account related to? Explain.
- According to Jose Montero y Vidal's account, the Cavite Mutiny was a revolt led
by disgruntled soldiers and workers who aimed to topple the secular crown and
end Spanish authority in the Philippines. Both Jose Montero y Vidal and
Governor General Rafael Izquierdo argue that the Cavite Mutiny was nothing
more than a simple act by the Filipinos for their freedom, which in turn led to a
revolution against the Spaniards. This is the connection between their respective
accounts.

4. Among the three versions of Cavite Mutiny, which one is most credible? Why?
- In the account written by Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, it is credibly explained
that the Cavite Mutiny was merely a movement by the dissatisfied Filipino
soldiers and laborers who were deprived of their former privileges. This is
explained in the way that the Cavite Mutiny was merely a movement by the
dissatisfied Filipino soldiers and laborers who were deprived of their former
privileges. When D. Rafael de Izquierdo assumed control of the Philippine
government, all the Filipino people wanted was for their laws to be reformed,
but this dream was dashed when he became president. The Spaniards'
intentions, when they made their assertions about the Cavite Mutiny, were to
bolster their political and economic authority in the Philippines. This meant that
their statements were tainted with bias.

5. Compare the three versions according to their definition of mutiny, its causes and
effects.
- Jose Montero y Vidal said that mutiny was a group of unhappy soldiers and
workers trying to get rid of Spanish rule. This rebellion started when laborers'
rights were taken away. This led to the death of the commander of the fort, the
deaths of two Spaniards sent to Manila by D. Fernando Rojas, the "Suppression
of the Revolt," the deaths of 41 rebels, the imprisonment of 11 people for 10
years, the execution of the GOMBURZA, the suspension of the practice of law by
native lawyers, and the disbanding of the native regiment. In Dr. Trinidad H.
Pardo de Tavera's version, mutiny was just a movement by unhappy Filipino
soldiers and workers who had lost their old rights. The goal of the revolution was
not to get rid of the Spanish government. The mutiny happened because the
soldiers and workers lost their rights to not have to pay a yearly tribute or be
Bryce Anthony L. Apit

forced to work, and because they were not allowed to start schools of arts and
trades. The revolution led to people dying and being locked up in the Marianas
Islands. It also stopped friars from exercising their power in matters of civil
government and kept Spanish rule. In his account of the Cavite Mutiny, Gov.
General Rafael Izquierdo calls it an insurrection, an uprising, and a revolution.
The government's wrongdoings led to the mutiny, which in turn led to the
uprisings of 1872 and put the Spanish in charge of the country.

Page 83-A. Identify what is being described in the following sentences.

1. August 26, 1896 and August 23, 1896

2. Sampalukan, barrio of Bahay Toro
3. Balintawak
4. Pugad Lawin
5. Emilio Jacinto

Page 83-B. Write True if the statement is correct, otherwise, write False.

1. True
2. True
3. False
4. False
5. True

Page 84. Give a concise explanation/discussion on the following items.

1. What does the issue on the First Cry depict about the Filipinos?
- The "First Cry," also known as "Unang Sigaw ng Himagsikan," is a depiction of the
courage shown by the Filipinos during the uprising against the Spanish rule that
was waged in order to struggle for their right and independence.

2. How does the account of Santiago Alvarez differ from all other versions?
- Santiago Alvarez, in contrast to the other writers of the sources, was not there
during the First Cry, as a result, his narrative has far less weight in comparison to
that of the other authors.

3. To which account do you believe? Why?

- I believe that Pio Valenzuela's version is the most credible of all the sources that
address the time and date of the First Cry. According to Pio Valenzuela's
testimony, the First Cry happened on August 23, 1896 in Pugad Lawin. I am
willing to accept this assertion. He went on to say that they had their conference
and argument at the home, storehouse, and yard of Juan Ramos, who was the
son of Melchora Aquino, the Ina of the Katipunan. He added that Juan Ramos
was the host of the event. They yelled "Long live the Philippines!" once they had
Bryce Anthony L. Apit

finished talking about it. His assertion that he was an eyewitness and one of the
leaders of the revolution lends credence to his thesis, and the fact that this
factual information is contained in his Memoirs of the Revolution enhances his
case.

4. How reliable is the version of Guillermo Masangkay regarding this issue?

- Given that General Guillermo Masangkay was also there throughout the events
that led up to the First Cry, his testimony carries a significant amount of weight.
In addition, we cannot ignore the original statement that Pio Valuenza made,
which was that the incident took place on August 26, 1896 in Balintawak. Pio
Valuenza then revised the date that he stated in his memoirs to reflect a
different year. The assertions that Pugad Lawin was the location where the First
Cry took place have come under substantial scrutiny as a result of his story,
which is one of the reasons why.

5. What makes Pio Valenzuela’s Cry of Pugadlawin a controversy?

- The dispute surrounding Pio Valenzuela's Cry of Pugad Lawin arose from the fact
that his first declaration and what he later recorded in his Memoirs of the
Revolution were two very different things. While the details of the situation were
still fresh in his memory, he related that the First Cry had occurred in Balintawak
on the day of the

Page 85. Read each question carefully and encircle the letter of the correct answer.

1. D.
2. A.
3. C.
4. A.
5. B.
6. C.
7. A.
8. D.
9. D.
10. B.