This site uses cookies for learning about our traffic, we store no personal details. ACCEPT COOKIES DECLINE COOKIES What are cookies?
univerge site banner
Review Article | Open Access | Asian J. Soc. Sci. Leg. Stud., 2023; 5(3), 62-66. | doi: 10.34104/ajssls.023.062066

Homonhon Island the Correct Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Book Review

Ferno M. Tan, Jr.* Mail Img

Abstract

This review intends to examine the merits of the book entitled, Homonhon Island: The Correct Site of the First Mass in the Philippines written by Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo, SThD. The author presents his arguments using a sociological-theological approach against proponents of Butuan, Limasawa, and Bolinao Islands, who earlier were claimed to be the correct site of the first Mass, respectively. The book contains 4 chapters the first of which deals with a historical background of the current sites of the first Mass while the rest focus on the authors arguments backed up by logical reasoning and a revisit of Antonio Pigafettas accounts. Content analysis revealed themes of diversity, regionalism, and dynamism characterizing the historians representations of their narratives. The rich discussion and well-organized layout of interesting data that are rarely found in other theological books make this masterpiece a must-read for historians, scholars, teachers, and students probing into the controversy behind the true site of the first mass in the Philippines.

INTRODUCTION

Homonhon Island: The Correct Site of the First Mass in the Philippines is a book written by Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo, SThD aimed not only to com-memorate the 500th anniversary of the first Mass in the Philippines but to contribute to the solution if not to terminate the controversy over the location of the first mass in the Philippines which began in the early 1600s. In presenting his arguments, he uses a socio-logical-theological style in contrast to the geogra-phical and topographical approach used by opposing proponents. His contention is supported by rare and diverse set of hand-down materials linked to the Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation of the world. Robredillo, (2021) traces back history to uncover fresh arguments aimed to debunk previous claims.   

The book contains 4 chapters, the first of which deals with historiography and present-day claims of the first mass in the Philippines. It is to be noted that currently, there are four groups of historians vying for the title of their chosen locality as the venue of the first mass in the Philippines, particularly Butuan, Limasawa, Bolinao and Homonhon which the author is advocating for in his book.  

In an attempt to promote balance in reporting, the author presents the arguments of the pro Butuan pro-ponents comprising the following scholars: (Frans-cisco Colin, 1663; Gaspar de San Agustin, 1565-1615; Juan de la Concepcion, 1788-1792; Jean Mal-let, 1846; Jose Montero y Vidal, 1886; Juaquin Martinez de Zuñiga, 1893; Felipe Redondo, 1886; Fred Washington Atkinson, 1905; John Foreman, 1906). All these authors point to Masao, the old name of Butuan as the venue of the first Mass offi-ciated by Fr. Pedro de Valderrama on April 8, 1521, believed to have fallen on Easter Sunday. The book offers a detailed discourse on this argument.  

Meanwhile, the pro-Limasawa proponents were led by a notable scholar, James Alexander Robertson (1906), who, after translating the Ambrosian Codex that was originally created by Andrea da Mosto (1894), declared Mazaua as Limasawa where the first mass was held opposing Colins (1663) pre-vious claim that Mazaua referred to Masao, Butuans old name. In supporting Robertsons (1906) claim, other historians tried to establish that “Magellan never visited Butuan” (da Mosto, 1894; de Tavera, 1895:6; Colin & Pastells, 1903), implying clearly that the first mass could never have happened in Butuan, but in Limasawa. Pro Butuan historians argue that Colins findings are not consistent be-cause he simply relied on fragments from the sum-mary of Pigafettas original text written by Giovanni Battista Ramusio (1536). They claim that the docu-ments used by Colin are too weak to claim Butuan as the true venue of the first Mass. Due to the unrest among Butuan proponents who insisted on their claim, the Gancayno Commission was formed to evaluate the documents but their final verdict was in favor of Limasawa, not Butuan (Eno, 2022). 

The third contender, the pro-Bolinao group, proposes that the earliest Mass was not officiated by Fr. Pedro de Valderrama but by an Italian Franciscan Missi-onary, Odoric Pordenone in early 1324 in Bolinao Bay in Pangasinan, 200 years before Magellan set foot on Philippines shores. This claim was unfor-tunately ignored by scholars, in particular, William Henry Scott, (1982) who argued that Odoric could not have landed in the Philippines because records show that he docked at the islands of Dondiin which is believed to be a part of Borneo and Hainan (Rodriguez, 1965).

Recently, a new set of contenders, the Homonhon proponents have asserted that a relevant portion of Pigafettas account provides a background for claim-ing that the first Mass was held in Homonhon, formerly called Humunu, an uninhabited island that Magellan labeled as the Watering Place of Good Signs (Pigafetta, “Primo viaggio” 33, 103-107) because it is where they found gold. Using the wri-tings of Francisco Albo (1519) in his Derrotero, a section from Pigafettas account tells that Magellan landed in an island named Zamal, assumed to be Samar which Magellan labeled as Archipelago de San Lazaro due to the many surrounding islands nearby. Albos claim was supported by notable his-torians such as (Percy Hill, 1934; Jose Vicente Braganza, 1965; Cantius Kobak, 2006; Tomas Gomez III, 2014; Danilo Madrid Gerona, 2016) who all advocated that the first Mass was held in Homon-hon Island. 

One point of interest is the authors use of inves-tigative inquiry in probing into the reasons why Magellan called Samar and its adjacent Islands Arc-hipelago de San Lazaro (Sobredillo, 2021) from which sprouted another controversy- a question of when exactly the first Mass was celebrated. Mage-llans account as an answer to that question has always been interpreted in 2 ways: one is that the islands were discovered on the feast day of St Lazarus which in 1521 fell on March 16 as opposed to (Neil Tenefrancias, 2021; Rolando Borrinagas 2008) claim that it was on March 17, 1521, Laza-russ Sunday. The author asserts that before the Council of Trent in 1545-1567, the liturgy, rites, and calendar were characterized by diversity, as opposed to Tenefrancias and Borrinagas assertion that the church has always celebrated the feast of St. Lazarus on March 17. He likewise denies the claim of hi-torical revisionists that Magellan landed in Calicoan Islet, Guiuan, Eastern Samar saying that there is no mention of Calicoan in the Magellans 6 primary sources. 

Chapter II highlights the authors grounds for up-holding Homonhom as the correct site of the first  Mass throwing off powerful arguments as follows: 1) based on primary and secondary sources the Mazaua mass was neither the first Mass nor the first Easter Mass; 2) the first proponent of Butuan neither witnessed nor joined Magellans expedition; 3) the absence of an event (like the first mass in Homonhon Island) in the chronicles of Pigafetta does not mean it did not happen; 4) the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Feasts presupposes the holding of the mass; 5) Daily Masses and Communion and obser-vance of religious observations in the fleet; 6) cele-brating thanksgiving Mass after a perilous journey; 7) and the argument that the first thanksgiving Mass was not in Mazaua but in Homonhon (Sobredillo, 2021). In Chapter III, the author strengthens his claims by proposing that Magellan provided avenues to satisfy Sunday and Feast Day Mass obligation and reception of sacraments by establishing Chaplaincies or the office of a priest attached to a private chapel. The Parishes at Sea referred to a group of people under the pastoral care of an assigned priest within the fleet which provides further clues about the masses being held regularly. In addition, he presents evidence describing Magellan as a pious, deeply reli-gious, and devout Christian who certainly would hold a Thanksgiving Mass after landing safely. In fact, the entire chapter is dedicated to Magellans religiosity and the many variables connected to his religious influences and advocacies. 

However, the book fails to mention the Mozarabic Rite assumed to have been used in the first mass in Homonhon based on the premise that Fr. Valderrama was a Spanish secular priest from Seville, Spain. It can thus be construed that his orientation and formation and the way he celebrated the liturgy of the mass would be in Mozarabic Rite (cite source). This is an issue spotted that needs further probe by future researchers. 

Chapter IV puts emphasis on the authors inquiry into Pigafettas inability to include the holy masses assumed to have been celebrated on Homonhon Island. The author uses the works of Antonio Lom-bardo (in Pigafetta, 1493) who examined the specific intention of Pigafetta in writing the diary including his ordinary interactions in the social world. Lom-bardo opines that what Pigafetta wrote may have been based on his purpose, subsequently affecting how he wrote history. In fact, a historian selects which data to write from among large volumes of data (Fulda, 2005). With Lombardos account that Pigafetta rarely recorded Masses held in the fleet, the author deduced that the record of the first Mass in Homonhon may have been deliberately omitted be-cause it was something regarded as ordinary; some-thing they normally do. However, I find this argu-ment weak because, from a sociological point of view, humans commonly tend to document the firsts in their lives. Having sailed for a long time in a perilous journey and finally settling in an island, the crew must have offered a Thanksgiving Mass which historians would consider significant because it is the first Mass in the newly-conquered territory. The author continues to add that Pigafettas possible interest in gold may have been the primary intention for writing the accounts. He inferred that reports about sources of wealth in the islands would interest the King of Spain more than a few pages about the Mass. Arguably, a historian who embraces the empi-ricist dictum -to see is to believe would always find the essence in novelty.

CONCLUSION

In sum, we find a highly engaging opus reflecting a potpourri of historical accounts where each team of proponents brings to the arena its own gem seeking to be heard, acknowledged, and recognized. The author utilizes dialectical inquiry aimed at verifying the truth by probing into ideas, arguments, and pers-pectives of other historians that compete with his own. What makes the book stand out is the presence of a platform where historians lay their cards on the table exposing their vulnerability to critiques and controversy. The author attempts to strike a balance in reporting; however, there is no guarantee that all the arguments of the opposing parties were reflected in the presentation. The narratological analysis will tell us that history can come from a “quasi-readerly or selective narrativization” (Fulda, 2005:1), im-plying that historians tend to select what contributes more to their purpose, leaving out some data which others may find useful. 

The book highlights diversity among historians in judging and interpreting facts, persuasiveness, sour-cing, corroboration, and contextualization of evi-dence. They battle over the landscape and uses of history and how they depict it to young people whom they all agree know little about the past (Coleman, 1985; Gibbon, 2018). It is likewise a cha-llenge to have Pigafettas account as the only pri-mary source relative to the first Mass which through time underwent reconstruction and translation that may have distorted and mutilated some contents causing diversified interpretations. It is a good thing then that the book presents a well-organized chro-nology of events which makes it easier for scholars and students to conduct comparative analyses of the historians varying perspectives on the first Mass phenomenon.

Another theme shows regionalism as a latent agen-dum in historians advocacies. For instance, it is no coincidence that the author of this book comes from Eastern Samar where Homonhon is located while other Homomhon supporters come from other parts of Samar. Incidentally, this, too, is observable a-mong Butuan and Limasawa native proponents. Having distinct linguistic, religious, and cultural qualities, these regions typically experience tensions as they compete with each other in seeking recog-nition as the correct venue of the first Mass for local and global prominence and tourism boom. However, it is worth noting that the author of this books exp-ressed his pure intention to rebrand their place from being a region scarred by violence and rebellion to becoming the true venue of the first Mass in the Philippines (Robredillo, 2021). 

Finally, I ask the question: Is Homonhon the correct site of the first Mass in the Philippines? Based on the arguments presented, there is a possibility. However, it is only a matter of time before the next historian attempts to nullify this claim. Among the challenges historians probably often come to grips with are the elements of impermanence and dynamism.  They can alter the viewpoints of historians. In fact, this book demonstrates how our fast-paced society has influ-enced historians insights, giving us a hint that this long-debated issue is here to stay until a collective consensus is attained declaring the only one true site of the first Mass. Overall, this book carries powerful arguments that bring about feasible, but not con-clusive, logical support for its claims. While reading, one feels like watching a live debate where scholars actively construct, refute and rebuild their case. For historians, scholars, teachers, and students who love this kind of ambiance, this masterpiece is highly recommended. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am especially grateful to Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo, SThD for allowing me to conduct a review of his book, and to Prof. Janet P. Espada, Ph.D. for her words of encouragement and friendship. Special thanks also to Coleen S. Gacho, RN for her untiring moral support.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 I declare no conflict of interest that may have influenced the writing and publication of this manu-script. 

Article References:

  1. Albo, F. (1519). Derrotero. The First Voyage Round the World/Log-Book of Francisco Alvo or Alvaro. Translated by Lord Stanley of Alde-rley. Wiki Source. Blog. Retri. on March, 2023. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_First_Voyage_Round_the_World/Log-Book_of_Francisco_-Alvo_or_Alvaro     
  2. Atkinson, F. W. (1905). The Philippine Island. Boston: Ginn and Company.
  3. Borrinaga, R. (2008). Barangay Triana: the right site of the first Mass in Limasawa in 1521. The J. of History, 54(1).
  4. Coleman, S. R. (1985). When historians dis-agree: BF Skinner and EG Boring, 1930. The Psychological Record, 35, 301-314.
  5. Colin, F. (1663). Labor Evangelica, ministros apostolicos de los obreros de la Compania de Jesus, fundacion y progresos de provincial en las Islas Filipinas. Madrid: Joseph Fernandez de Buendia, 1663.
  6. Colin, F., Pastells, P. (1903). Labor Evan-gelica, ministros apostolicos de los obreros de la Compania de Jesus, fundacion y progresos de provincial en las Islas Filipinas. Barcelona: Imprentay Litografia de Henrich y Compaňa, 1900-1903.1.40, 2.
  7. Da Mosto, A. (1894). Il primo viaggio intorno al globo di Antonio Pigafetta e le sue regole sullarte del navigare; Marco Allegri, Giralo-amo Benzoni e la sua Historia del Mondo Nuevo. Roma: Auspice il Ministero della Pubblica Insturzione.
  8. De la Conception, J. (1788-1792).  Historia general de Filipinas. 14 vols. Manila: Imp. Del Seminario Conciliar y Real de San Carlos.
  9. De Zuñiga, J. M. (1893). Estadismo de las islas Filipinas o Mis Viajes por este Pais. ed. and annotated by Wenceslao Retana. Madrid: Imp. de la viuda de M. Minuesa de los Rios. 
  10. Eno MA. (2022). Huburow: the voice and vision of the students of the university of sout-hern Somalia, Br. J. Arts Humanit., 4(5), 165-170. https://doi.org/10.34104/bjah.02201650170   
  11. Foreman, J. (1906). The Philippine Islands. New York: Charles Scribners Son.
  12. Fulda, D. (2005). Selective History. In J. Mei-ster (Ed.), Narratology beyond Literary Criti-cism: Mediality, Disciplinarity Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. (pp. 173-194). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110201840.173  
  13. Gibbon, P. (2018). Historians Disagree About Everything, or So It Seems. The Education Digest, 83(5), 32-41.
  14. Gomez, T. III. (2020). Before Limasawa, Philippine Daily Inquirer. Opinion, January 4, 2014, accessed March 12, 2020,  http://globalbalita.com/author/perry/page/79/ 
  15. Hill, P. (1934). “A Hitherto Unpublished Do-cument on the Landing of Magellan at Hom-onhon,” Philippine Magazine, 31 (August 1934), 8, 321-322.
  16. Kobak, C. (2006). Franciscan Evangelical Labors in Samar and Leyte: 1769-1945.” Prolepsis, 2 [92-113] (June - October 2006) 92-113.
  17. Pigafetta, A. (1909). Primo Viaggio Intorno al Mondo (The First Voyage around the world), in Emma Blair and Robertson, eds. The Philippine Islands. 1493-1898. 55, Cleveland, Ohio: A.H. Clark, 1903-1909, 33(34).
  18. Pordenone, O. (1911). Pordenone Odoric. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Appleton Company. 12(281).
  19. Ramusio, G.B. (1536). Il Viaggio fatto dagli Spagnivoli. 
  20. Redondo, F. (1886). Breve Reseňa de lo que fue y de lo que es la Diócesis de Cebu en las Islas Filipinas. Manila: Establecimiento Tipografico de Colegio de Santo Tomas.
  21. Robertson, J. A. (1906) “Annotations” to An-tonio Pigafetta, “Primo viaggio intorno al mondo,” in idem and Emma Blair, eds. The Philippine Island 1493-1898. Cleveland, Ohio: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1906, 34,153-180. 
  22. Rodriguez, I. (1965). A Bibliography on Leg-aspi and Urdaneta and their joint expedition. Philippines Studies. 13, 2976-297,308.
  23. Ruiz, R. G. (2007). Mozarabs, Hispanics and the Cross. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
  24. Scott, H. W. (1982). Why then the Butuan tradition? Kinaadman, 4, 163-165.
  25. Sims, D. (2022). History isnt written by vic-tors; its written by people who want you to believe it. Prince George Citizen. Newsletter. Retrieved on March 28, 2023  https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/opinion/opinion-history-isnt-written-by-the-victors-its-wri-tten-by-people-who-want-you-to-believe-it-533-8368  
  26. Subhan, M. S., & Ostwald, K. (2020). Regio-nalism in Malaysia: Containing grievances in an ethnoreligious dominant party system. Ava-ilable at SSRN 3760149.
  27. Tenefrancia, N. (2021). Is March 16, 1521 the ‘Lazarus Saturday? Neil Gavan Tenefrancia. https://www.facebook/ngtenefrancia  

Article Info:

Academic Editor

Dr. Antonio Russo, Professor, Dept. of  Moral Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, University of Trieste, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy.

Received

March 13, 2023

Accepted

April 23, 2023

Published

May 1, 2023

Article DOI: 10.34104/ajssls.023.062066

Corresponding author

Ferno M. Tan, Jr.*

Master of Arts in Theology, St. John the Evangelist School of Theology in Palo, Leyte, Philippines. 

Cite this article

Tan, Jr. FM. (2023). Homonhon island; the correct site of the first mass in the Philippines: a book review, Asian J. Soc. Sci. Leg. Stud., 5(3), 62-66. https://doi.org/10.34104/ajssls.023.062066 

Views
1397
Download
459
Citations
Badge Img
Share