Where was the first mass in the Philippines held?

Answer 1

The first Catholic mass in the Philippines was held in Limasawa, an island town of Southern Leyte. This is the popular view. It is false. Here's a brief explanation of this great historical error: All the five eyewitness accounts of Magellan's voyage--by Antonio Pigafetta, Gines de Mafra, Francisco Albo, The Genoese Pilot, and Martín de Ayamonte--that contain references to a port named Mazaua, do not mention any island named Limasawa. There is no Philippine language that has that word. In fact, the placename "Limasawa" is an invention of Fr. Francisco Combés, S.J. Combés published in 1667 a book on evangelization of Mindanao. In his story he narrates the sojourn of Ferdinand Magellan's fleet in Philippine waters. He states the fleet went to Butuan where a cross was planted on March 31, 1521. He mentions no mass held on that day. In fact his Limasawa is not the Mazaua of Magellan. It is the isle Gatighan which is found at 10 degrees North latitude. In the story and map of Antonio Pigafetta, it is the waystation where the Armada de Molucca hove to late in the afternoon of April 4, 1521 where they caught one bat which they ate. Gatighan, like Limasawa, did not afford any anchorage. It will be recalled Fr. Combés had no knowledge of Mazaua that was correct and factual. He in fact dismissed the account of Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas who said the island-port was named Mazaua. Instead Combés opted for the garbled story by Giovanni Battista Ramusio who said the port was Butuan. Combés also dismissed the name given four years earlier by Fr. Francisco Colín, S.J., for the same island. Colín's name for Pigafetta's Gatighan was "Dimasawa," an invented word, which was to signify it is not the Mazaua of Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas where an Easter mass was held. Colín and Combés both adopted the story--garbled and awfully mistaken--of Giovanni Battista Ramusio that the island-port where a mass was held was Butuan. If Limasawa and Dimasawa are misnomers for Pigafetta's Gatighan, who then said that Limasawa and Mazaua are one and the same? The man who said Combés's Limasawa is Magellan's Mazaua was Carlo Amoretti who had not only not read Combés but had not read a single primary account of Magellan's voyage except the Italian manuscript of Antonio Pigafetta. He certainly did not read Ginés de Mafra's account which is the most authoritative on Mazaua. Ginés de Mafra was the only crewmember of the fleet who was able to return to Mazaua, in 1543, and stayed there for about six (6) months. He was part of the expedition under Ruy Lopez de Villalobos. His testimony about the port is precise. In any case, Carlo Amoretti said in his edition of the Italian Pigafetta which he published in 1800 that Limasawa may be the island named Limasawa in the map of Jacques N. Bellin and that both are found in latitude 9 degrees and 40 minutes as located by Pigafetta. What he did not know was that Limasawa is in 9 deg. 56 minutes North, and there are three readings for Mazaua: Pigafetta's, Albo's 9 degrees and 20 minutes North, and The Genoese Pilot's 9 degrees North. What is most telling is the fact that Limasawa, as stated by the Coast Pilot, has no anchorage. Mazaua had an excellent harbor. Philippine historians and historiographers who have entered the discussion on Mazaua are not navigation historians and therefore this technicality has not registered on them. It is lamentable that those who're engaged in this controversy do not take the pains to trace the word "Limasawa" to its very beginning, 1667 when it was first invented by Combés who knew nothing about Mazaua, and what he knew of it was absolutely wrong. And they should indeed trace the idea Limasaw=Mazaua to Carlo Amoretti who was ignorant of what Combés's Limasawa was.

For a full discussion, pls. go to www.xeniaeditrice.it/mazaua.pdf. Or go to Wikipedia, click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_mass_in_the_Philippines and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_mass_in_the_Philippines