Interpreting the First Mass

Herman Licayan

This article is not meant to settle the controversy between Butuan and Limasawa.
Rather this is intended to provoke deeper reflection on the part of the Butuanons to
realize that even if the issue remains unsettled to this day, still it has already pave the
way to Butuan’s self realizations that invoke the pride of simply being born in the place
and which is, to my opinion, far surpasses than just simply winning the contest. Thus,
our real battle is not just about the site of the first mass, it is actually an effort to define
our identity clearly as the to question of who we are. Our theoretical framework is Paul
Ricoeur’s concept of history.

There are basic reminders when we engage into history. History is not just about
brute facts. In writing history, the writer is like molding an identity of people in the
present. Every traces of the past are all like clays in the hand of a potter. Clays alone do
not produce a pot, nor the hand can but, together with the mind of the potter, both are
indispensable components to create a pot in whatever designs. History is shaping an
identity by making use of materials that are drawn from the accounts of the past. All of
which are examined, selected, evaluated, and weighed down according to the professional
preferences of the researchers and the history writers whose minds are always laden with
the ideology of the present times. The issue of the first mass in the Philippines, just like
all other historical issues, is not just a mechanical transference of facts and historical
writings down to the present in order to resolve certain misunderstandings. It is an
interpretative issue which necessitates a better philosophical understanding of history so
that even if we give up our pursuit for definitive resolutions to historical conflicts, still
the task of doing history remains worthwhile. It is in my opinion that Paul Ricoeur offers
us a great help in elucidating this point. It is then necessary to present his thought on
history in a nutshell in view of talking on the first mass.

Ricour’s Historiography

Whether we like it or not history is always written from the perspective of the
present. No matter how we claim for objectivity of the accounts of the past, still it is
always seen from the point of view of the present. Paul Ricoure’s detailed examination
of our understanding of history puts into question most of our traditional assumptions on
dealing with historical accounts. He then proceeded to challenge us in making history
very much intimately grounded on the present exigencies and that how it must articulate
our present concerns in as much as the very act of looking back at the past is indeed an
expression of doing the task in outlining who we want to be today.

Memory and history

Without memories there could be no history involving people. Ricoeur
distinguishes two kinds of memories. There is the individual's memory of what he or she
has encountered or done or suffered. And analogously, there is a set of memories that
individuals share with other members of their group. Through this collective memory, a
group of people has access to past events and deeds that have been reconstructed and
recounted to them. Indeed, from one perspective, this collective memory antedates
individual memories. We are born into a familial discourse replete with accounts of our
group's (family, locale, nation, etc.) past. Our individual memories take shape against the
backdrop of this collective memory
Memories are mental pictures we create in grasping the past and never letting it
go into oblivion. Through them we try to represent the past in the present. We do so
through memory and through the writing and reading of history. But even the sharpest
memory is notoriously fallible and historical accounts are always subject to its
imperfections. In such a case, since they cannot represent the past just as it was, are at
best only partial and are therefore subject to the charge that they misrepresent, rather than
represent, the past.
People say that ancient men and women have better memories than the modern
ones. Our modern media often complain that Filipinos have legendarily short term
memory. There is a truism of course when it comes to political issues. But even if the
belief on ancient people’s sharp memory can be accepted on the basis that oral tradition
of which ancient writings are heavily indebted of was very much strong in those days,
still that does not give us guarantee of an absolutely infallible account of the past. At
best, memories can give us the picture of the past but in no way it can recreate the past
just as it was. This would yield then serious consequences. If this is the case, then there
will be no bare, unchallengeable, and uninterpreted facts. Thus, history would turnout to
be a processes of interpretations and reinterpretations of historians.

Interpretative activity
Ricoeur calls the task of writing history as historiographical operation. This
operation endeavors to support, correct, or refute collective memory. This operation does
not deal directly with individual memory except as reported to and believed by others. It
has three distinct but inseparable constituents, all of which are interpretative activities.

Circle of interpretation
 1. Use of archive: Archival work is itself an interpretative activity. Guided by
their interests, historians, librarians, etc. determine which traces to preserve.
Every item in the archives is in one way or another personal and professional
choice of scholar/curator whose passion of the past is highly commendable. We
must then take into accounts that their collection may not necessarily be
considered as positivistic facts.
 2. Explanation/comprehension: the activity by which historians relate facts to one
another. When facts are lump together in order to come up with an accurate
reconstruction of the past, the historian is always guided by a certain personal
standards which at the least shared by his fellow scholars. The historian must be
attentive to the multiple meanings of why these are relevant to making action
intelligible.
 3. The activity of producing a verbal representation of some part of the past in a
text. The only way to make sense of the past in the present is to employ the
 language of the present. Thus, Pigafitta’s “legua” must not just only be translated
but converted into “nautical miles”. Ancient linguistic expression must be
contextualized in the present language-game. This inscription is always rhetorical
and therefore interpretative. Indeed, the historiographical operation as a whole
forms a kind of circle of interpretation.

Are we running the risk of pushing history into something too subjective? Does
the circles of interpretation suggest that historical claims are without objective bases? In
avoiding the pitfalls of subjectivism, Ricoeur emphasizes solid basis of which our
knowledge of the past must be grounded. If there is no way we can arrive at certitude,
still we can insist of such knowledge as credible.

Credibility and certainty

Given the interpretative nature of the entire historiographical operation, historical
knowledge, like medical diagnosis and prognosis, always has the character of likelihood
or credibility rather than certainty. Even though the historiographical operation is
thoroughly interpretative, it is still possible to speak of the objectivity and truthfulness of
the historian's account, something actually occurred, something objective. Thus, in
resolving the first mass issue, all participants in the contest recourse to the authority of
the first hand accounts of Magellan’s chroniclers in establishing their arguments, not
because for certainty since admittedly there are even conflicting irreconcilable accounts
among the chroniclers themselves of the voyage, but because they are in the best position
to provide us with the description of what and where exactly happened in that Easter
celebration.

The First Mass

The first mass was instituted by Christ at the cenacle in Jerusalem. Today, Jewish
people are not going out in the streets telling everybody that the institution of the mass
happened in their place. Does it make sense for Butuan or Limasawa to quarrel in this
conundrum about the first mass in the Philippines two thousand years after? Since today
Butuan is much noisier than Limasawa, probably because apparently they are in the
losing side, does it make sense to continue its stubborn clamor by not giving up its claim
for the first mass of the country when there is a very strong possibility, though lack of
historical records, that masses could had been celebrated in the archipelago long before
March 21, 1521. Given the presence of the Portuguese in Moluccas during the first
quarter of the sixteenth century which provided a good navigational access into the
islands of Mindanao and Visayas makes such historical allusion not so difficult to
believe. Is it not also highly plausible that when the Magellan’s fleet landed in
Homonhon on March 16, 1621 which was Holy Tuesday, a mass could have been already
celebrated in there? These questions obviously are very disturbing for us Butuan
proponents because there seems to be no strong reason no to accept the plausibility of the
above claim.
 And even if the first mass happened in Butuan, was it worth the trouble of the
local historians to tediously do their research in the vast libraries in Europe and America
just simply to prove their point which was in fact already twice turned down by the
National Historical Institute (NHI)? The prostration of some local historians is
heightened by the growing sentiment that recourse to the NHI is practically futile and
therefore deserved to be abandoned. There is now an increasing mood of cynicism on the
part of some of local historians to rethink whether or not such an endeavor was just a
mere product of sudden emotional outburst of losing something which Butuanons are
convinced to be rightfully theirs without even weighing the relevance of whether or not
that something does have really worth. Does it have a cash value? Indeed, not a few
people in the academe and even some clergy of Butuan diocese shared this sentiment.
Butuan’s reaction to Limasawa’s claim in fact is intriguing to me because
obviously for more than three hundred years this was not exactly the case. We all know
that people in Butuan were, in fact, remiss or at least, indifferent to the issue for the first
three hundred years after that Easter mass was celebrated in the Philippine archipelago.
Prior to Martial Law period, first mass issue was just taken for granted by the majority
and that very few people from Butuan bothers the issue. Yet as the time goes by the
clamor is getting stronger, evidences seem to refuse to be silence by politics, and that
more and more Butuanons are beginning to be aware that the claim in fact is worth
pursuing for. But why it has been taken for granted in the first place?

Remission of the past

In the anthologies of historical researches that deal with the first mass issue, there
is no mention of a single Butuanon participating in the enterprise before the Limasawa’s
claim. It is not altogether historically accurate to think that Butuan is giving so much a
fuss on the first mass; on the contrary, they were guiltier on ignoring the issue for a long
time and that they realized their being remiss almost too late. No one in Butuan dare to
write their own golden history and therefore other people wrote it for them. Here, we
have the nutshell of the problem because history, no matter how accurate it may, is
always written from the perspective of the writer, and therefore certain elements of
his/her worldviews must be considered in reading the text as Paul Ricoeur reminds us.
Objectivity is always the problem in writing the text for one important thing to be
considered is the fact that almost all historians are researchers, not eye-witnesses. If there
are irreconcilable differences of the accounts of the chroniclers in the past who happened
to be the immediate witnesses of the same event, how much more can we expect for the
historians of today five hundred years after? The repercussion is clear, historians are
heavily at the mercy of the level of accuracy to the textual account they are reading.
Whether or not we like it, history is an interpretation of the past, not just an accurate
objective data of dates, places, and events of the past. Thus, what is at stake is the
question, who are in the best position to write history?
This is crucial because, to my mind, had Butuanons wrote their own history, it
could have been much fairer description of our past and that their work would naturally
contain the pride of the place. Whether or not it was a deliberate act, in hindsight, Butuan
ignores the first mass. It was their silence, not their noise that leads them into their own
demise. I do not think Butuanons have the right to complain against historical
inaccuracies by calling it “deliberate distortions” if it could have been better written by
themselves.

Awakening
Fortunately, in recent years this attitude has dramatically changed. Butuan has
already realized its sin of omission. There is now a growing awareness of the need to
define ourselves by taking a clearer look at the past. And we people from Butuan must be
the ones to do the task. Today, we have dedicated local historians who take the task of
trying to caricature labyrinth scheme of Butuan’s past. In making up their mistake, they
are so zealous that some people are already agitated by their acting like gadflies to
incessantly claim for the first mass. Consequently when some people get feed up, they
say, what’s the big deal about it anyway? And so dispense its relevance.
Well, that’s precisely the problem as we have just pointed out. For hundreds of
years the first mass was no big deal to Butuanons. They were not the first ones to raise
the importance of this issue. In my elementary years, history teachers in Butuan have no
trouble at all teaching us that the first mass was held in Limasawa, Southern Leyte.
Obviously, Butuan accepted it. Butuan was so remiss that even her own representative to
the lower house, Cong. Manuel Sanchez, voted the Congressional resolution in favor of
Limasawa. Such an act of Butuan solon came only as a secondary reason to bring down
the Butuan proponents of their claim. The primary reason was that the first mass issue
was not even popular among Butuanons then. It was not the history teachers but the local
historians, who are not even teachers nor historians in a real sense, and in most cases at
their own personal expense, who initiated the challenge of Limasawa’s claim. Many of
them were engineers, seamen, businessmen, religious, civil employees, etc. The only
thing that common for them is that they were all Butuanons and that they care about as
one. To this moment when local historians are publishing their own researches on the
issue and even right now when I am writing this article, I am still imagining that
Elementary and High School students are listening to their teachers telling them about the
first mass that was held in Limasawa. Until now I am still wondering how many
classroom teachers fail to go beyond their textbooks in teaching their students. Teachers
should realize that history courses are critical disciplines not a fundamentalist textual
subservience. All we have to remember is that history teaches us the lessons of
intellectual freedom not of political bondage; students must be critical not just to the text
but even to those facts presented to them in the class. On the other hand, it can be said in
some sense, that if Butuan realizes importance of the first mass, what were the factors
which triggered them in the first place? At this juncture, we must turn to the
1
Limasawans who started the claim which in the process provokes Butuan’s reaction.

Thanks to Limasawa
Butuanons are not indifferent people. Being born and grew up in the place, I can
attest that they deal people either in hospitality or hostility. They are generally good
friends, but can be fierce enemies. But for reasons that are unknown to me, just like most
of our Filipino ancestors, they do not bother much about history except today. They had
been indifferent on the issue for a long time. On the contrary, Limasawans may be
indifferent, but certainly not on the first mass. They saw the importance of the event and
1
Not mainly the inhabitants of the place but the proponents of the claim.
they did not take it for granted. Back up by the works of historians with unquestionable
reputation like James Alexander Robertson and Emma Blair, including Pastells, a Jesuit
missionary in Caraga, they were the first ones to bring this issue to the Congress of the
Republic of the Philippines. The act of seeking for a resolution in the congress on the
issue of the first mass ceases all speculations that such issue is devoid of any significance.
A Christian nation cares for the first mass must naturally be the case. It has become no
longer be a mere ecclesiastical event but also with national import. They continue to
monumentalize it by building a commemorative site of the first mass in their place. The
subsequent publications of history textbooks mentioning Limasawa to be the site of the
first mass continuously cemented Limasawa’s claim. And these were easily done with
great success uncontestly so far. But Limasawans were not done yet. They vigilantly
guard their claim not wanting of scholarly research endeavor that recourse to the reliable
pages of historical text against rival claimant like the Butuanons. And so far, twice they
have proven to be still successful in so far as NHI is concern which reinforces their belief
of not giving it up easily. The first mass must had been a pearl of great price that they
tenaciously refuse to let it go. The message is very clear: The first mass is important and
it should not be taken for granted. Take note it is the Limasawans making this clear to
the whole country, not the Butuanons. But certainly this is the point that both
Limasawans and Butuanons agree. The former twice won the contest, the message that
reaches to the Butuanons was not defeat, rather a powerful realization that the issue at
stake is not an insignificant matter.
By then, it became a big issue; and it still took a decade for the Butuanons to
realize that it was. When apparently it was settle in Limasawa, Butuanons became so
restless upon realizing that they had been stripped off from such historical honor. Indeed,
it was because of the Limasawan’s that they were challenged to thoroughly investigate
history by their own. Butuanons felt they had been screwed up and so they rose to the
challenge by doing their homework. It was however sad that many of them looked at the
Limasawans as simply an opponent to the contest, not as an eye-opener from their great
slumber. Thus, Butuan owes Limasawa. This is one consideration that Butuanons should
not miss to see.

Taking the challenge

We may ask now the question, had Limasawans never claim the first mass, would
the Butuan local historians be motivated to engage in painstaking researches taking at a
closer look at the exact itineraries of Magellan voyage to our islands? Would Butuan do
its homework in identifying the exact location of the island Mazzau which was the heart
of the whole conundrum? In the realm of possibility, of course, yes. Butuanons by the
way have that superior inclination towards learning. They are very intelligent people
however there seem to no clear evidence as to whether or not they were once interested of
the first mass issue. Admittedly, there was no apparent indication that they will. It must
be taken as a fact that it was because of the Limasawa claim that catapulted Butuan to
revisit the first mass event and in the process they become more and more convinced that
indeed historical distortion happened. Through the indefatigable efforts of dedicated
local historians evidences slowly began to surface from the primary source accounts of
Magellan chroniclers, archeological discoveries, down to the most recent
geomorpological findings of Butuan’s topography, all of which strongly suggest that there
seem to be no doubt at all that, to people with fair mind, there are overwhelmingly much
things to be said in favor of Butuan than of Limasawa. (I will no longer deal so much on
this because many already did.) Now Butuan is ready to tell her story but given the fact
that the whole country where taught for decades that the first mass was celebrated in
Limasawa, it will not be easy to pose an unfamiliar claim from what was already been
received and even legislated. Undoing history never happens overnight.
In 1977, during the first NHI hearing held in Manila, at the height of the debate
the former first lady Imelda Marcos, the pride of Leyte, entered into the picture and said
that there are still a lot of more important and compelling things that we Filipino should
discuss about and that we should not derail much time and energy in discussing less
significant matters which the country does not practically need. That aborted the debate,
not because of her wisdom but of her influence. The issue remains unresolved to the
displeasure of Butuan.
But certainly, the former first lady has made her point; we need to discuss
important matters. We must focus to urgent and relevant issues. Obviously the first mass
is not on her list. If we take up Ricoeur’s advice, we must ask the question, who are
those people in the best position to deal professionally the issue. That brings us back to
the idea of credibility even if we forego the question of certainty. I repeat, it is
credibility, not political status quo that must be counted. This very sad because when
historical issues are submitted to the judgments of incompetent politicians, issues are not
just muddled, it also show how culturally and intellectually confused we are.
I should agree that first mass is not an important and urgent issue to resolve by
our country. The only thing which I do not understand is that if the first mass is to be
taken as celebrated in Limasawa, Leyte, it is a big issue that deserved to be brought to the
Congress and to be mentioned in all history textbooks so that every single student of this
country must be informed about it; if it is to be taken in Butuan, then let us not talk about
it because it is not the pressing issue for the Filipino people and therefore, insignificant.
To say that the first mass is both significant and insignificant defies the most fundamental
principles of logic, the principle of contradiction. Common sense tells us that they
cannot not be both true at the same. Who will categorize the first mass issue or how is it
to be categorized whether it is a significant issue or not is still to be resolved. In our
country even today, it is not uncommon to experience issues being turned down and
silenced by the employment of political power and influence by persons of status quo
leaving no room for rational discourse among equal proponents of the divide that will
pave the way for the truth to come out. We have so many political and social issues
which were dealt with along this line. Sabi nila, ang Filipino ay magaling sa umpisa,
walang natatapos. It has become a culture that politics rules over reason. Very
unfortunately that this is how we do it, parati dinadaan sa gulang. Certainly, this is not
a good indicator for a civilized society.
That was Butuan’s first set back. Their greatest predicament is based on the fact
that they were not allowed to lay down the merits of their position. The products of their
painstaking researches were doomed only to be kept by themselves and may be for later
generations. They did not loss; they were not allowed to fight. Sometimes this is more
painful than lossing. So Butuan historians packed up their research stuff went home with
their luggage loaded with heavy hearts from such an excruciating humiliation.
 But it was not a set back at all. The spirit of their great forefathers “Calaganon”
simply shows off naturally. Di gyud papild, madyaw gani. There was no sign of slowing
down research. It was a blessing in disguise to leave the issue unsettled so that
Butuanons will never give up their struggle and continue their painstaking search for the
forgotten past which in fact turned out to be very much well paid not by money but by
facts and very surprising discoveries that even boast the Butuanon pride beyond their
expectations. Butuan became not just convinced that they were right of the first mass;
they also discovered facts of their past far greater cause to be proud of our place.

Snowballing of discoveries
When Butuan local historians engaged themselves into their research they were
little by little drawn by the tidbits of their discoveries that their effort was well paid by
ancestral pride. They all started by simply intending to lay down factual evidences as
convincing as they can that the first mass did in fact was celebrated in Mazzau, the recent
Masao, in Butuan. But what happened was that they found and discover something about
their past far more than what they were looking for. Butuan did not only discovery the
first mass but more importantly their glorious past long before the coming of the
Spaniards. There were astounding discoveries that every Butuan-born person cannot but
be proud of the place that gave him/her birth. Butuan was in search for the first mass, yet
they discovered a kingdom. That Butuan was well-known kingdom in the East with
advanced civilization, producing the earliest ship-building in the country, known for her
wealth for the abundance of gold in the area, and having already established some
diplomatic and trade relations with the world’s greatest civilizations such as China and
India as early as before the thirteenth century. The 5th century Balanghai, 6th-10th
centuries Chinese porcelains, the 13th century Indian Golden Tara are few monumental
testimonies to Butuan’s forgotten greatness. Chinese manuscripts attest the fact that
Butuan had already strong commercial link with China back in the tenth century; so that
today, China and Butuan are annually celebrating their more than a one thousand year of
trade relation. In fact, the Butuan which the Spaniards discovered was already in its
declined stage as those authorities of the subject claimed. These discoveries have already
produced books being published which provided detailed reconstruction of Butuan’s
original grandeur almost stuck in the realm of oblivion doomed in perpetual silence. The
treasures of the past are almost entirely irretrievable, but our crystal knowledge and living
memory of them far surpasses their own value enough to resurrect the Caraga grandiose
tribe as an unquenchable inspiration for the succeeding generations. When a child is born
in the place and grows up aware of the place’s grandeur that looms in the past, he/she
now has the insight that ahead a greater grandeur is within the range of possibility of his
place’s future. Thanks to the first mass and the local historians.
During the Spanish period, it was also recently discovered that the first systematic
Christian evangelization in Mindanao took place in Butuan. And that the first Parish
dedicated to our Lady of Light was erected with Fr. Valeriano Legaspi and Fr. Martinez
both of the Society of Jesus were the first priests. Thereby the first church was
subsequently built at the closure of the seventeenth century. This is uncontested. This is
an important historical landmark in the history of Christian evangelization in the whole
Island of Mindanao. These discoveries started because of the first mass. The relevance
of the first mass is not only based on the fact that it leads to another wonderful
discoveries of Butuan’s past. Of course, it has its importance of its own. We care about
these not just because we are Butuanons but that we are also Catholics who care the
religious landmarks which took place in our place leaving significant traces of our
religious history.

Impact on Tourism

Since we have been giving so much stress of the pride of the place, one might be
led to think that it has no economic significance. From pragmatic point of view, some
people might think that the first mass issue has no cash-value. This is not entirely true. It
is not wrong to recognize that the first mass is important for economic reason, an
important fact of which the City government through the department of tourism is perfect
aware of. It is not an act encroachment on the part of the city government on religious
matters to actively support on such claim because certainly it carries an economic
implications through the revenues that the government may earn from tourism industry.
It is expected to boast the local tourism. Southern Leyte enjoys it today. That is why the
city government is more supportive in funding the local historians than the local church
of Butuan. But of course, it would be so naïve to view the significance of the first mass
solely from economic perspective. If we are seeking for an honor, we are not remiss to
overlook the economic implication that goes along with it. To say that the issue has no
cash value is an indicative of ignorance in the revenues that is drawn from tourism
industry.

Religious Identity

Greg Hontiveros, a leading Butuan researcher and a local historian, already

pointed out that until recently, there is no official commemoration by the Catholic Church
on the first mass. Given the fact that we are the only Catholic nation in Asia, this is not
comforting. Nevertheless, one can still argue, does the first mass have something to do in
order to badge the quality of a Catholic nation? Well, of course, not necessarily. But
while it is certainly true that the mere fact that we are the only Christian nation in Asia
does not necessarily make the first mass important; it is equally true that by no means it
bears any suggestion to us Filipinos to be unmindful about it on the other hand. It is
more reasonable to suppose that given we are the only Catholic nation in Asia, favors the
first mass’ significance rather than its irrelevance.
Limasawans were not devoid of profound religious reasons on the first mass
which many Butuanons still have to learn. They are after of it because the first mass is a
precious landmark of our Christian cultural heritage, so we as Filipinos. No matter how
we try to understand our cultural identity in hindsight before the Spanish arrival,
confronted with the Filipino that we know today, Christian culture becomes a sine qua
non. Indigenous, Islam, Hindu, Biddhism, or Christianity all bears the deep-seated
religious stamp on Filipino identity. I don’t think it is possible to understand the Filipino
today without any consideration of the Christian culture that molded us for five hundred
years. I don’t think it is fair to view the sort of Christianity that we Filipino have today as
purely an alien cultural virus that infected the system of the Filipino worldviews. The
truth is that Filipino did not just succumb passively to such intrusion of western religion,
(this is arguable because Christianity is basically born in Asia) they appropriated it into
their own culture. Jose de Mesa, a lay theologian, stresses that Filipinos are not passive
recipient of Christian faith, they consciously took it to be their own. The swords of the
conquistadores are inadequate explanations to the five hundred years of cherishing the
Christian faith by the Filipinos so that with or without those swords, still we are
Christians. We are religious people before, during, and after Spanish colonization.
Notwithstanding with recurrent religious tensions, Filipinos were not just Christianized;
Christianity was also Filipinized. And so, rather than looking at the Spaniards as
imposing their own foreign religion, I would rather say that it was a reinforcement of that
profound religious identity that we had. Thus, it is a gross negligence to engage into the
search for Filipino identity without totally considering Christianity. (With due
indulgence, we don’t intend to slur the indigenous and Muslim Filipinos for certainly we
are all the same Filipinos.) We only hope so that it will not seem to be very repulsive to
some Filipinos who do not share Christian faith that given the fact that we are the only
Catholic nation in Asia, then we must not take for granted our Christian heritage. It is
imperative that such heritage has to be embodied by pointing out the places where
important historical events took place that bears the landmarks of origin of our religious
past. If Christianity reinforces our religious identity, then obviously the first mass
reinforces in some way our being a Catholic and a Christian.

Question of importance
Thus far the National Historical Institute as the bureaucratic branch of the
government to directly settle the issue has done an exceedingly slow work. And so it
seems to be left behind the trend. The trend now seems to shift from ‘where the first
mass was celebrated?’ to question ‘is the issue relevant?’ To opinionate, the former is
much easier to answer for either side all they have to do is recourse to facts; the latter is
much harder to dealt with, and therefore more intellectually challenging. The question of
relevance cannot be reduced to objectivity. In dealing with the former, all we have to do
is to present facts and evidences which can overwhelming speak for themselves; in
dealing with the latter, we got to establish strong and convincing arguments that will
draw the opinions of the multitude into our favor.
Finally, I would like to make a bold claim. Given all the preponderance of
historical evidences, there is no doubt to my mind that if that mass which was celebrated
in Mazzau in March 21, 1521 is to be taken as the first mass in the Philippines, then
Butuan deserves the claim. Butuan has already most of these evidences at hand; they are
just waiting to be heard. So far, there is not much of a problem at this point. However,
aware of the Pangasinan’s claim of the first mass in the 13th century, then that certainly
muddles the whole issue. And when an issue is muddled, its significance would most
likely diminish. I think Butuan has already outgrown its pursuits for evidence, they must
have to established that the issue is important, at least important for us Roman Catholics
and Butuanons, and therefore worth a national attention.
Since I am convinced that Butuan has the claim of the first mass, I suppose this is
not really the real challenge that we Butuanons have to face. With utmost emphasis, I
must give so much insight with the issue of importance. Perhaps we must consider the
fact that there are a lot of Filipinos even among those coming from stakeholder places
were even interested on the issue simply because importance is grossly overlooked.
Today, while the Butuan has not yet able successfully to convince the whole
country, it is noteworthy to be aware that even among the clergy of Butuan, there are still
skeptical about the claim. One clergy expressed his hard-shell comments, “The fact was
that the first mass happened in Limasawa….even if we bang our heads on the wall, we
break our heads not the wall.” Such a strong word requires shrewdness. He was wise
enough not to be interested to hear in detail the facts and evidences that favor Butuan for
they will certainly break his head. I was taking my Tuesday lunch at the Cathedral while
I was reading the third draft of Butuan’s position paper prepared by Greg Hontiveros to
be submitted to the NHI when a fellow priest taunted me and said, what’s the significance
of the first mass? I was taken aback and replied with the mixture of impatience and
pride, the first mass is important because it is a mass.
To me the greatest importance of the first mass is not just because it happen in
Butuan. I do not think that is essentially what we are fighting. Neither it was because a
religious event. But still even if we remove the religious significance of the first which,
of course, carries Christian prejudice, still it is important because it is one of the most
remarkable landmarks of who were the Butuanons in the past. The first mass, from
historiographical point of view, points to Butuan’s greatness in spearheading the
country’s civilization and that it will serve as our great inspiration to achieve what the
foreparents of the place have achieved.

Conclusion
If doing history is essentially a circle of interpretations, then Butuanons are the
best interpreters of Butuan’s past. We, Butuanons, can design our ancient past for the
sake of our present. We can recreate the ancient pride in the context of the present in our
terms. We can envision an identity that is created from the backdrop of the great past.
Being positive of what we Butuan are capable of, we recognize the fact that we have not
emulated our forefathers enough because we seem to fall behind the neighboring cities in
Mindanao. But this attitude of seeing ourselves can be an anodyne to the prevalent
cynicism towards the city government because of ugly politics.
Our preoccupation endeavors to highlight the importance of the historical issue as
an indicative of how we Butuanons take the task of outlining our identity as a people who
is in search for an identity of which all of us can be proud of, an identity that is drawn
from the shadows of our grandiose past. Our identity does not lie on the fact that we won
in establishing the first mass as celebrated here in Butuan but that we are a people of
great heritage, a people of greatness. The spirit of greatness runs in our blood. It is our
responsibility to keep such spirit alive in our times and for the years to come. It may not
be very clear to the whole country as of today, but certainly it is not dead. Unfortunately
for the time being Butuan has not yet earn the country’s recognition as she deserved to
be. In so far as history continues to be written from the perspective of the north (Luzon),
thus far Butuan remains to be one of the unknown cities in the south (Minadanao) with
marvelous history. The Kingdom of Butuan has long been gone. That kingdom was not
characterized by palaces, temples, fortresses made of stones and rocks because such
materials were really endemic in a swamplands and topographically basin places. Thus,
we do not have much concrete remains today. What were left to us are not mainly about
fossils and concrete ruins. It was there great civilization, their social hierarchy and
organizations, and its natural resources that made them known. Though there are not
concrete monuments like great ancient civilizations of the west, they were known by their
spirits and that spirit still lives in its people. Therefore, the most important things which
our forefathers had left to us can never be an object of a greedy motivated treasure-
hunting. The challenge always remains for us to keep such spirit unquenchably inflamed
in our hearts and to continue to believe that we can still embody it once again.