Are you a true Wiccan if you are a Solitary Practioner

[Arie]

I have been reading some pretty heated discusions about this and i was hoping to get your input.

I have been told in no uncertain terms that if you dont belong to a coven you have no business even thinking about being a Wiccan. What do you guys and gals think.

[Lunacie]

I think that's elitist bull-hockey.

[Lady RedHawk]

I think that's elitist bull-hockey.

Ditto...

If you follow the Wiccan beliefs and ethics, then you are Wiccan if you so choose to call yourself - solitary or not. Them saying that tells me they are not comfortable in their own beliefs.

[Morgandria]

Personally, I feel that if you are not an initiate of Wicca - ie. you have not been initiated by someone else - you are not a Wiccan. Naturally, that makes some people angry.

[Lunacie]

Personally, I feel that if you are not an initiate of Wicca - ie. you have not been initiated by someone else - you are not a Wiccan. Naturally, that makes some people angry.

Which always raises the question... who initiated the very first Wiccan?

[ancestral_lee]

gerald gardner did.

the only way to be a solitary wiccan is to be initiated inot a coven then leave.

i could go around reading medical books and learn all about it, but you wouldnt come to me with appendicitis.

wicca is an initatory religion, like it or not, thats how it is.


lee

[Cassiopeia]

Personally, I feel that if you are not an initiate of Wicca - ie. you have not been initiated by someone else - you are not a Wiccan. Naturally, that makes some people angry.
This is the sort of elitist thinking that I thought Christians were only guilty of. Interesting

[Amryn]

Which always raises the question... who initiated the very first Wiccan?

Exactly. :hehehehe:

[Elderbush]

All of this leads back to definitions of Wicca. Different people define who is Wiccan and what is necessary to be Wiccan in different ways. The thing is everyone has a right to define it any way they want, and everyone else has a right to not accept that definition.

If you are going to be Wiccan you have to grow a thick skin. There are the extremists at one end of the pole who very narrowly define who is Wiccan and the extremists on the other end say everyone is Wiccan who says they are. The moderates fall in the middle.

If someone tells you you aren't Wiccan because you don't meet their personal or trad definition, listen politely, and if you don't agree say piffle and move on. Acceptance by them is not necessary for you to be Wiccan.

I believe that solitaries can be Wiccan. I'm one of the moderates.

[Qumran]

I have been reading some pretty heated discusions about this and i was hoping to get your input.

I have been told in no uncertain terms that if you dont belong to a coven you have no business even thinking about being a Wiccan. What do you guys and gals think.

IMO, anyone can practice Wicca solitary.

One reason some people claim Wiccans cannot be solitaries is that some traditions require members to be initiated into a coven. Some (but far from all) work it like a closed membership club that you have to be invited into. While it is true that Wicca is a "mystery" religion and DOES require initiation, some traditions view self-initiation as perfectly valid.

In my view, since Wicca is a religion and adoration of the God and Goddess is the biggest part of it, the RELATIONSHIP between the deities and the individual Wiccan is more important than being 'in the club.'

What happens if the member becomes separted from the coven, or moves away? - do they have to stop being Wiccan?... I DON'T THINK SO!

[Autumn Sidhe]

In my view, since Wicca is a religion and adoration of the God and Goddess is the biggest part of it, the RELATIONSHIP between the deities and the individual Wiccan is more important than being 'in the club.'


THIS is by far the best answer i've ever seen regarding this topic. There is no way I could have put it into words like Qumran has. BRILLIANT!

I couldn't agree more!:idea:

[Qumran]

....If someone tells you you aren't Wiccan because you don't meet their personal or trad definition, listen politely, and if you don't agree say piffle and move on. Acceptance by them is not necessary for you to be Wiccan.

I believe that solitaries can be Wiccan. I'm one of the moderates.

Thank God/dess for the moderates!! All these extremists are making things scary out here!!!

:yikess:

[Lunacie]

Comparing apples and oranges only proves that they are different articles. Medical training and religion are not the same thing. I agree with Qumran that you must be initiated into a Coven to be a Coven-member, but you don't have to be initiated into the religion in order to be Wiccan (i.e. have the beliefs and do the practices). I have never been initiated into a traditional coven so I probably don't know as much as some who have been, but I may know more than others who were. Depends on the coven in question, doesn't it?

[MGD]

I have been reading some pretty heated discusions about this and i was hoping to get your input.

I have been told in no uncertain terms that if you dont belong to a coven you have no business even thinking about being a Wiccan. What do you guys and gals think.

When you get down to it who the hell cares as long as whatever you're doing works for you?

If you have to feel like you're part of a group for it to work then go for it, if not then do your own thing.

People seem to worry more than they should about labels and titles.

[Little Billy]

I have been reading some pretty heated discusions about this and i was hoping to get your input.

I have been told in no uncertain terms that if you dont belong to a coven you have no business even thinking about being a Wiccan. What do you guys and gals think.


So who the hell are they to dictate this sort of thing?

What is this? Catholicism? :lol:

[Thunder]

So who the hell are they to dictate this sort of thing?

What is this? Catholicism? :lol:

Is the Pope a wiccan?

[Little Billy]

Is the Pope a wiccan?

Last I checked, he was Emperor Palpatine.

No, really. Look at him.

[Morgandria]

I expected this reaction, to be honest. I am a member of a BTW coven, Alexandrian, and we do believe Wicca to be an mystery, initiatory faith. Self-initiation is not possible...which is not to say that one can't self-dedicate and practice a Wiccan-inspired path. But by the definition of the word "initiate", self-initiation isn't possible.

Being on your own can be wonderful; you can learn many things, practice many things, have wonderful experiences. I was a solitary practicioner for a long time, and I didn't call myself Wiccan. I still technically am not, because I am not an initiate of my tradition. But I will be, in time. I believe in keeping some standards, and some clear definitions - "Do whatever feels right" doesn't work for me, and I don't like the lack of clarity certain things are devolving into.

If you really have to have a word to describe your path or practices, make up your own - don't subvert a word to fit any number of things until it's meaningless. People can get upset if they like, but that's my opinion.

[Ninjakitten]

This all kind of begs the question of what Gardner said about what makes someone a Wiccan, and in what ways it is acceptable for change and evolution to occur in the religion he created. If he left room for new types of initiation to be created by solitaries or non-initiates by the things he said, I'd say that you don't necessarily have to be initiated to be a Wiccan. Personally, I consider myself a witch that has been influenced (loosely) by Wicca, and wouldn't call myself a Wiccan unless I met Gardner's criteria for being a member of his created faith (whatever that might be since I haven't read a lot of what he himself has written).

[Jolantru]

Well, it seems to be that there will be fundamentalists in any faith or belief-system out there in our nice little planet. The trick is to be firm and strong and say "I am solitary" without being afraid of judgement, because there will always be people who will go "No, you can't do this." And Wicca has grown quite big with its own branches and traditions.

Stick to your own beliefs. You can be a solitary and a Wiccan.


Cheers,
Jolantru

[ancestral_lee]

extremists? that will ne most pagans in britain. i see a common trend that pagans over here in the uk know and accept that wicca is initiatory and whilst you can certainly follow the wiccan path using published literature, you need to be initiated to get the full icture - after all not everytihg is published.

i notice it seems to be in the US that that wicca has become a free for all where any 14 year old can read a book and suddenly decalre himself a high priest - thats an insult to all those HP and HPS out there who have spent the time to study, work thier arses off and run a coven.

lee



If you are going to be Wiccan you have to grow a thick skin. There are the extremists at one end of the pole who very narrowly define who is Wiccan and the extremists on the other end say everyone is Wiccan who says they are. The moderates fall in the middle.

.

[Elderbush]

And those are the two extremist's viewpoints in a nutshell. Thank you!

Many years ago (30 or thereabout), some Wiccans, members of covens and not, in the US adopted some guidelines about Wicca and having to be initiated wasn't one of them. I expect there are a few people out there who have read or been taught those guidelines.

I think the moderates will win the field in the long run.

[Valnorran]

gerald gardner did.
So who initiated Gardner?

[Valnorran]

I think the moderates will win the field in the long run.
I hope you'r right. With the hard core traditionalists on one side and the fluffy bunnies on the other, I've been seriously considering deep sixing it and just considering myself a solitary ecclectic pagan.

[Arie]

i notice it seems to be in the US that that wicca has become a free for all where any 14 year old can read a book and suddenly decalre himself a high priest - thats an insult to all those HP and HPS out there who have spent the time to study, work thier arses off and run a coven.

Ok i agree with ancetral Lee on the above.....I am on myspace and there are a bunch of pagan groups etc. A majority of the people on there are in their 20's. Now me being an old fart and all I am open to other peoples views and opinions. Hey if i want to learn i need to be BUT when someone tells me that I cant even consider myself Wiccan at all becuase i dont want to join a coven...i have issues with large groups....then i get a bit miffed. Solitary Witches have been around LONG before there were covens. I am NOT bending to anyone's elitist attitude that stuff just blows.

I have to applaud all of you:abanana: :abanana: in the three pages so far of this discussion NO ONE has gotten snippy....on myspace....one post later and they are swearing and tearing people apart for their individual beliefs.

Brightest blessings

[Lunacie]

So who initiated Gardner?

Gerald Gardner was certainly initiated, but he was not initiated into 'Wicca'. The people that he initiated were not initiated into 'Wicca' either. Wicca today has it's roots in the Craft that Uncle Gerry was initiated into, but a lot has changed and the original changes came from Uncle Gerry himself. That set the stage for more changes along the line. He was the first to publish books and do interviews and make his "mystery" "initiatory" religion open to the masses.

Yes, there are some who call themselves Wiccan who have very little in common with traditional Wiccans, but acting elitist and fundamentalist and very superior isn't the way to encourage them to search out the roots of Wicca and learn and grow and develop personal responsibility, it will only make them defensive, eh?

There are a lot of people who find Wicca fits the beliefs they already hold, and they try to find reliable teachers to help them become "proper people", but the demand greatly outstrips the supply. Rather than trash talk those who are doing their best to be solitary Wiccans in spite of this lack, those who criticize them should be finding a way to fill that need. Put up or shut up.

[Elderbush]

I think that Wicca has matured and grown to the point that we have extremes. It is big enough that some extremists feel comfortable trying to oust the Wiccans who don't agree with them from not just a tradition within Wicca, but the religion itself. They want the power to define Wicca for the rest of us. It is nothing new to other religions - the Evangelicals are currently trying to force their interpretation of their religion on other Christians. The extremists do not have the power to define Wicca anymore than extremists have the power to control or define Christianity. It is too big for that.

We need the extremists who fall on both ends of the pole because they help define Wicca. They provide traditions that suit some people. They help the moderates in the middle define and re-evaluate what they believe about Wicca and who is Wiccan. They keep things interesting.

[juliaki]

Speaking as a non-Wiccan... ;)

I think that NeoWicca is the only religion out there in which a person can toss on the label and assume they are part of a specific spiritual path. Certainly during my time attending synagogue with my ex-husband, if I had opted to call myself Jewish, no one there would have accepted it. Likewise within Christianity, there are many people who attend church or practice Christianity (because they feel they have to) who don't consider themselves Christian and are not considered Christian by others.

One can practice the techniques and some of the spiritual aspects of Wicca, but that doesn't automatically make them Wiccan. I know how to do an emergency tracheotomy. That doesn't make me a doctor.

Likewise, I have a real problem with the idea of "self-initiation". Initiation refers to a person gaining membership into some form of group. How can a person join a group that doesn't exist and will only have one member once "created"?

As far as who initiated Gerald Gardner, I defer to the Wiccan experts out there, but wouldn't that be Dorothy Clutterbuck? No, she didn't initiate him into Wicca/Wica. But from where Gardner started, he created an initiatory religion. The example I like to use is that Jesus was never a Christian, nor a pope. Jesus initiated Peter into that role and others into that religion. Yet no person would really say that Christianity could exist without Jesus.

Again, I defer to those who have knowledge of what goes on in TradWicca, but I believe that Wiccans have specific names for the Lord and Lady that are not given out to non-initiates. Therefore, Wiccans don't just honor any ol' L&L, but very specific ones. If you don't know who those are, then how can you properly address an honor them? If you're honoring some other manifestation of deity, are you really following that religion?

[Sage WindMoon]

gerald gardner did.

Ah, so Gardner was not a Wiccan then.


wicca is an initatory religion, like it or not, thats how it is.


lee

I guess this just goes to show that every religion has its fundamentalists.

[Elderbush]

Mmm...interesting Abrahamic view. My counter would be that Wicca is not an Abrahamic religion therefore does not have to follow the Abrahamic structure.

You did hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that within the Jewish and Christian religions their are members who are quick to tell other people that they aren't Christian or Jewish. Wiccans do that to each other too. They people who are told they aren't Jewish or Christian or Wiccan probably don't agree.:)

[Lunacie]

Speaking as a non-Wiccan... ;)

<snip>

One can practice the techniques and some of the spiritual aspects of Wicca, but that doesn't automatically make them Wiccan. I know how to do an emergency tracheotomy. That doesn't make me a doctor.

Likewise, I have a real problem with the idea of "self-initiation". Initiation refers to a person gaining membership into some form of group. How can a person join a group that doesn't exist and will only have one member once "created"?

As far as who initiated Gerald Gardner, I defer to the Wiccan experts out there, but wouldn't that be Dorothy Clutterbuck? No, she didn't initiate him into Wicca/Wica. But from where Gardner started, he created an initiatory religion. The example I like to use is that Jesus was never a Christian, nor a pope. Jesus initiated Peter into that role and others into that religion. Yet no person would really say that Christianity could exist without Jesus.

Again, I defer to those who have knowledge of what goes on in TradWicca, but I believe that Wiccans have specific names for the Lord and Lady that are not given out to non-initiates. Therefore, Wiccans don't just honor any ol' L&L, but very specific ones. If you don't know who those are, then how can you properly address an honor them? If you're honoring some other manifestation of deity, are you really following that religion?


Again, comparing Medicine and Religion is comparing Apples and Tangelos, it's not really revelant.

I agree that in the strict definition of the word, initiation is done by others in order to become part of a group. However, I'm sure there have been groups that started out with one member. Is a tradition with only one member any less valid than a tradition with 13 members? Can you give me the exact number that it takes for a tradition to become valid? And cite sources please. ;)

Actually the religion that people claim to follow honoring Jesus as it's founder has little to do with what he actually intended and hoped it would be. He was a Jew and I don't believe he was trying to start a brand new religion that would be subject to the same problems his hereditary religion was prone to, he was trying to make his hereditary religion better as I understand the history.

Did Gerald Gardner intend for his new religion to be initiatory? History certainly suggests that is true. And again I say, the demand outstrips the supply. So people do the best they can with the resources that are available to them. Either provide more teachers or better resources, that would certainly be more helpful than deriding those who are trying to follow the path that is hidden.

I am not part of a Traditional Coven, and if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me here, but I believe that Gardner's coven used specific names for the Lord and Lady as part of their secret rites, kind of like a secret handshake. Individuals in the coven were free to follow and worship any god or goddess in their own lives and personal worship. Other covens were free to honor any Lord and Lady they chose to have as their patron and matron.

[juliaki]

I agree that in the strict definition of the word, initiation is done by others in order to become part of a group. However, I'm sure there have been groups that started out with one member.


I can agree with that. The question is, are those "groups" that started with one person initiatory? Or does it only become an initiatory group when one person brings another person into that group by the edicts laid down by that group's founder?


Can you give me the exact number that it takes for a tradition to become valid? And cite sources please. ;)

When one person does something over and over again, it is a habit. To be a tradition, it has to be something that is replicated by additional people over time. IMO, the time aspect is key to whether something is a tradition or not.

Either provide more teachers or better resources, that would certainly be more helpful than deriding those who are trying to follow the path that is hidden.

Likewise there are teachers out there who are often dismayed by the lack of students willing to utilize the resources that are already out there. I know of quite a few covens, stores, and public service groups locally that offer teachings for any person who is interested. You'd be surprised how few people take up the offer or start out but don't have the stick-to-it-ness to continue, even if it is training in something that does not lead towards initiation or is coven-specific. There's always excuses that come up.

[Elderbush]

Lunacie, as you know and I wanted to mention, new traditions have begun for more reasons than simply a lack of teachers. New traditions and solitaries often became that way because they disagreed with certain teachings in a tradition or a group of traditions. The mythical history of Wicca is one reason that leaps to mind.

Saying "initiation is necessary" to become a Wiccan may come off as a silly statement unless the poster explains what constitutes an initiation to them and defines how they are using it. Initiation by whom? If High Princess Pink Fairy Elf initiates her 13 year old friends during a Saturday night sleepover are they true Wiccans while the solitaries who have studied for years are not?

Ed. again to add: Bah! I didn't mean to muddy the waters by adding solitaries into that last sentence.

If High Princess Pink Fairy Elf initiates her 13 year old friends during a Saturday night sleepover are they true Wiccans?

Just leave it at that, please.

[Platinum Dove]

I've been having the same problem. Hearing that I'm wiccan, but not Wiccan because I wasn't initiated into a traditional coven. As I said to those people, in the past 9 years I've lived in three different countries (the US, Canada, and Germany), four different states within the US (FL, MS, LA and TX), and have lived in 4 different cities within LA (New Orleans, La Place, Kenner, and Thibodaux).
I haven't been able to stay in one place long enough for me to go the required year and a day within any group that I joined, and I've been with three different ones where I was living at the time.

So, does this make me any less "valid" as a Wiccan because life hasn't allowed me to stay in one place?

[Elderbush]

What it makes you is not a member of any of the traditions that you started training with. That is (to me) a completely different thing that whether you are a Wiccan or not.

[ancestral_lee]

this has been done to death here before so i will paste my reply then:

that said there is the llewelyization of wicca whereby you slap wicca after any random semi-mystical word such as celtic, faery, dragon or altaneandolphindruidry, and you can call yourself wiccan too. its these fluffy watered down crappy 'paths' that are referred to as the bastardised cousins of wicca.

gardner intended it to be an initiatory tradition, the living members of the original covens still think it should be an initiatory and lineaged tradition. you can self initiate as much as you want but you are still not Wiccan. yep, you can call yourself a witch and practice and follow a wiccan path using published material - you dont have all of the information as there is alenty that hasnt been published - but you arent a 'true' Wiccan.

self initiation into wicca is like trying to lose your virginity with a sex toy, and the only way to be a solitary wiccan is to join a coven and then leave it.



initiation is required if you want to be jewish, catholic, part of the mithras cults and a whole host of other reliogous groups. its how it is.

if you want to go down a wicca insprired path - good on you, but at least have the respect for those people who have gone through initation, who have studied and who work thier arses off for YEARS to get where they are.

i dont mnd people calling themselves wicca if they are solitary, cant find a coven or have simply read a book on it, but i think that addressing the distinction between initiates and not is important. to get to HPS in a coven is damn hard work and that should stand head and shoulders that fluffy pink fairy and her 13 year old slumber party initiation who come out after 1 might as 'high priestesses'

lee

[Arie]

I have no desire to be a HPS and i am well beyond 13. I do not want to be part of a Coven becuase I DO NOT do crowds of people well at all. I get very agitated...its just not a good thing. That and the fact there are people who say "You HAVE to join a Coven...."
I have access to numerous Covens in and around my area but again....NOT my thing.

[Lunacie]

I think that's elitist bull-hockey.

I should have left it at this. :lol:

[Spirited]

When it comes down to it, no one has to follow my path but me. So I don't really see why I should be judged as a fluffy-non-Wiccan-14-year-old-uber-elf when I'm the only one who has to deal with the consequences of it. Hell, even if I did want to be a fluffy-non-Wiccan-14-year-old-uber-elf it shouldn't matter to anyone else. It's my life, my own mind, no one else has to do it as well. Unless I'm using my "title" to hurt people, to ruin the public face of the religion, no one else should give a damn.

Personally I don't see what the problem is either with believing in love and light and faeries and unicorns. None of those beliefs hurt anyone. I once asked a fundamental Christian if they would mind if the Age of Aquarius actually caused positive change. The answer was a kind of stumped, "Uh, no, I guess not but if it means...[scripture here]."

More on topic, I can't join a coven. I'd have my parent's permission to, but I doubt that any of the two covens with a 100 mile radius would accept me because of my age (or lack of it, whichever.) I could look further, but I somehow doubt my family would be willing to give up their Weekends to drive me jeebers-knows-where. Also, I wouldn't know whether I'd even want to join one. One of the main reasons I connected so well with Wicca, and Paganism in general, was that it meant I didn't need a Priest/Rabbi etc to interpret the deities for me. I could have a connection with them every day without needing someone to point me to the right Holy text.

Um...yes, I think I meant there to a point in there somewhere, but meh...

[Aidron]

You must be initiated into a tradition to make a claim to that specific Wiccan tradition. Simple matter of the fact, the people in that tradition decree it to be so. Don't like it? Don't bother with that tradition.

Wicca, in my mind, is not a mystery tradition. There is not one thing mysterious about a literary assault on the market. Very few things I've learned from so-called 'mystery initiates' are nothing I did not already know or did not later come to find in public literature. I don't consider it a mystery tradition as such.

Therefore, you can be a solitary Wiccan. You can't claim to be a solitary Wiccan of a specific tradition that requires initiation by a current member into their tradition. I don't care who first initiated the very first Gardenerian Wiccan or Alexandrian Wiccan or whatever else, it's not meant to be logical, it's their religion, their rules.

Wicca implies a lot of things, most of which its adherents do not all adhere to in unison, so Wicca as it would stand seems to be defined in a blurry light. In the end though, I think that all of the "Do what you want" eclectic stuff isn't Wicca. It's an entirely new faith with Wiccan basics and fundamentals having been incorporated, but people want to cling to titles. Titles make life simpler for the most part.

[Elderbush]

Well, yes, Lunacie, I thought that summed it up rather well.:)

[ancestral_lee]

there is a fair bit that hant been published - i can think of some of the top of my head right now - so in that sense the blanket bombing of the market hasnt hit all targets so to speak.

other than that i agree with you totally.





Wicca, in my mind, is not a mystery tradition. There is not one thing mysterious about a literary assault on the market. Very few things I've learned from so-called 'mystery initiates' are nothing I did not already know or did not later come to find in public literature. I don't consider it a mystery tradition as such.

[Lunacie]

Well, yes, Lunacie, I thought that summed it up rather well.:)

Thanks. I do have a tendency to overtalk something at times.

One last thing, I don't think you have to be initiated into a traditional Wiccan coven in order to be Wiccan.

[ancestral_lee]

One last thing, I don't think you have to be initiated into a traditional coven in order to be Wiccan.

shouldnt that be a Wiccan coven to be Wiccan? traditional witchcraft is different to Wicca

do you think that you can self baptise into catholicism or self-admit yourself into the freemasons?

[ancestral_lee]

of course the other advantage to inititaed and lineaged wicca is that what some tw*t starts causing problems, it can all be traced and the person who initiated them can be blamed <ewg>

[Elderbush]

Lunacie, Good on you. Your opinion is worth just as much as an extremist's view and is just as valid.

Sorry! This is in answer to Lunacie.

[Aidron]

there is a fair bit that hant been published - i can think of some of the top of my head right now - so in that sense the blanket bombing of the market hasnt hit all targets so to speak.

other than that i agree with you totally.

Not the mainstream market, perhaps, but published nonetheless. I'm not speaking of things like correspondences among individual correspondences and more importantly the why behind them. That's of no consequence, anyone can come up with their own correspondences and the logic behind them.

The real bread and butter of Wicca, however, I cannot say I know all there is to know, but I haven't had much trouble finding supposedly secret information of Wicca, particularly with the internet. Mystery traditions imply a certain amount of mystery and there isn't a great deal left with Wicca for the most part.

[Elderbush]

shouldnt that be a Wiccan coven to be Wiccan? traditional witchcraft is different to Wicca

do you think that you can self baptise into catholicism or self-admit yourself into the freemasons?


For one thing Wicca isn't Abrahamic based. For another the Catholics, in case you hadn't noticed, are a denomination of Christianity - sort of like Gardnerian is a tradition of Wicca. Freemasons are a club and in my opinion Wicca is a religion.

I would quite expect that the Gardnerians set the rules for who is a Gardnerian. But they do not set the rules for who is Wiccan, just like the Catholics do not set the rules for Christianity.

[Lunacie]

shouldnt that be a Wiccan coven to be Wiccan? traditional witchcraft is different to Wicca

do you think that you can self baptise into catholicism or self-admit yourself into the freemasons?

Of course that's what I meant. Post edited to be entirely specific.

[Lunacie]

For one thing Wicca isn't Abrahamic based. For another the Catholics, in case you hadn't noticed, are a denomination of Christianity - sort of like Gardnerian is a tradition of Wicca. Freemasons are a club and in my opinion Wicca is a religion.

I would quite expect that the Gardnerians set the rules for who is a Gardnerian. But they do not set the rules for who is Wiccan, just like the Catholics do not set the rules for Christianity.

Yup, that's how I see it. :thumbsup:

[ancestral_lee]

For one thing Wicca isn't Abrahamic based. For another the Catholics, in case you hadn't noticed, are a denomination of Christianity - sort of like Gardnerian is a tradition of Wicca. Freemasons are a club and in my opinion Wicca is a religion.

I would quite expect that the Gardnerians set the rules for who is a Gardnerian. But they do not set the rules for who is Wiccan, just like the Catholics do not set the rules for Christianity.

no it isnt abrahamic, but the point still stands. if it makes it easier for you, replace catholic with mithraist.

Gardenarian IS Wicca. the distinction only needed to come about after Alex sanders split off to form his brand of wicca which derived from geralds work.

[Lunacie]

no it isnt abrahamic, but the point still stands. if it makes it easier for you, replace catholic with mithraist.

Gardenarian IS Wicca. the distinction only needed to come about after Alex sanders split off to form his brand of wicca which derived from geralds work.

Yes, Gardenarian is Wicca.
So is Alexandrian.
So are a whole host of other traditions.

Yes, you have to be initiated to become a member of one of those Wiccan traditions.

You don't have to be initiated to become a Wiccan, solitary or other. Nothing I've read here has changed my way of thinking on this.

[Elderbush]

no it isnt abrahamic, but the point still stands. if it makes it easier for you, replace catholic with mithraist.

Gardenarian IS Wicca. the distinction only needed to come about after Alex sanders split off to form his brand of wicca which derived from geralds work.


Of course Gardnerians are Wiccans - just like the Catholics are Christians. They are not the only Christians, nor are Gardnerians the only Wiccans. I understand your point although you are missing mine, I think. I will try again.

My point is one denomination of a religion doesn't set the rules for all of the other traditions in the religion although they may want to do it.

The Gardnerians (or Alexandrians or Georgians) can only decide what it takes to be in their tradition and who is a member of that tradition. They cannot dictate the the rest of the religion. They can, and sometimes do, state that everyone who isn't doing things their way is not Wiccan but everyone is free to ignor them because they have no power over anyone except those who are in their tradition.

I hope that is clearer.

[Morgandria]

When Lee is saying "Gardnerian IS Wicca", he means they're the first. They started the whole shebang. So...really, they wrote the rules. From that perspective...when is something too far removed from its' source to be considered still the same as that source?

I want to know - without an initiation, how do you become a Wiccan?

[Lala]

Kudos to you all on a really intelligent discussion...

As someone put earlier in the conversation, congrats on having a mature discussion on a potentially hot issue.

That's it from me :o

[Elderbush]

The Catholic church "wrote the rules" originally, and then a whole lot of people disagreed with them, splitting off to form their own traditions. Sort of what has been happening in Wicca from the beginning.

The Catholic church lost control of Christianity. The Gardnerians lost control of Wicca. It is a good thing in my opinion. I personally do not ask a BTW if they think I'm a Wiccan. I KNOW I'm a Wiccan.

As for how far is too far from the original sect, ask again in 2,000 years. I wonder what Wicca will be like then.

I think that the solitaries become a Wiccan by saying "I'm a Wiccan" but that is probably an individual thing.

[Lunacie]

When Lee is saying "Gardnerian IS Wicca", he means they're the first. They started the whole shebang. So...really, they wrote the rules. From that perspective...when is something too far removed from its' source to be considered still the same as that source?

I want to know - without an initiation, how do you become a Wiccan?

Something can certainly become to far removed from it's source to be considered the same thing any longer. However, initiation into a coven is only one of the original practices of the religion Gardner cobbled together from many sources. If you add one or two things that make sense in the greater context it can still be considered Wiccan. If there are one or two things that are not included for good reasons, it can still be considered Wiccan. Does anyone here insist that only those who practice skyclad are true Wiccans? Or only those who use flagellation are true Wiccans? Why is there this big sticking point over initiation except to be elitist?

[Qumran]

THIS is by far the best answer i've ever seen regarding this topic. There is no way I could have put it into words like Qumran has. BRILLIANT!

I couldn't agree more!:idea:

Thank you, Autumn Sidhe. :)

[ancestral_lee]

ok, well this isnt going anywhere.

the issue i have is that anybody who reads a single book on the subject can call themself wiccan if they want to, but thats it, theyve read a single book, and from what you are saying youd give them equal standing with those people who have gained admittance to a coven and worked to get where they are.

the doctor analogy works, it applies - i can read a medical book if i want but it doesnt make me a doctor.

[ancestral_lee]

Something can certainly become to far removed from it's source to be considered the same thing any longer. However, initiation into a coven is only one of the original practices of the religion Gardner cobbled together from many sources. If you add one or two things that make sense in the greater context it can still be considered Wiccan.

gardner intended for nothing to be taken away from what he created, certainly things can be added but nothing could be taken away. those who have not gained initiation do not have all the info, are not playing with a full deck and it could therefore be argued that they are not practicing Wicca.

Why is there this big sticking point over initiation except to be elitist?


because with all the sh*te out there peddled as ye olde genuine wicca of the atlanteandolphins of crystalmermaid wicca, perhaps its becasue they dont want to be associated with the comercial, watered down crap?

societies, clubs and groups dont usually want and old fool or loon to be amongst thier ranks. if you feel thier discretion or right to choose is elitist well tough tittie.

[Lunacie]

ok, well this isnt going anywhere.

the issue i have is that anybody who reads a single book on the subject can call themself wiccan if they want to, but thats it, theyve read a single book, and from what you are saying youd give them equal standing with those people who have gained admittance to a coven and worked to get where they are.

the doctor analogy works, it applies - i can read a medical book if i want but it doesnt make me a doctor.

Are we reading the same thread?

No one here has said that reading a single book on the subject makes anyone Wiccan. No one is giving them equal standing with those who have studied and worked, whether within a coven or as a solitary. Work is still work and should be recognized whether it's done alone or with a specific group.

I have seen people make those ridiculous claims about anything and everything being Wiccan. But they haven't been doing that here.

We're simply saying that comparing becoming your own priest/ess by initiation to becoming a doctor by graduating from medical school isn't the same thing. Yes, it's ridiculous to claim to be a HIGH priest/ess when you've only been studying for two months and you either don't have a coven or your coven is your two best friends who started studying last week. But, unlike Catholics who must go through their priests and be told what to believe and how to practice their religion, we are free to talk to the gods directly, without an initiation.

[ancestral_lee]

thats what being said here, anyone could pick up a book, read it, self initiate and as far as you are concerned they have the right to call themself a Wiccan. whereas to gain initiation into a coven you have to work for it, therefore by calling youself Wiccan it shows you have already proven yourself to the HP and Hps. its almost like a qualification. not everyone who begins thier training to get initiated gets it.

by calling youself wiccan it implies you have already studied for a year and a day, after that your degree informs how much extra work you have done.

the alternative other people on here agree with is that in theory i could pick up a book - find the self initiation page, do it and BINGO - im Wiccan in 5 minutes.


No one here has said that reading a single book on the subject makes anyone Wiccan. No one is giving them equal standing with those who have studied and worked, whether within a coven or as a solitary. Work is still work and should be recognized whether it's done alone or with a specific group.

[Lunacie]

gardner intended for nothing to be taken away from what he created, certainly things can be added but nothing could be taken away. those who have not gained initiation do not have all the info, are not playing with a full deck and it could therefore be argued that they are not practicing Wicca.

Hell, there were all kinds of changes taking place right up till the day Gardner died. Some he agreed to, some he didn't. But ya know what, he wasn't a god. I see no problem with adding to or taking away from what he created, it's a work in progress. Yeah, it can become so different that it's not really Wicca anymore, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether initiation is a make it or break it point.


because with all the sh*te out there peddled as ye olde genuine wicca of the atlanteandolphins of crystalmermaid wicca, perhaps its becasue they dont want to be associated with the comercial, watered down crap?

societies, clubs and groups dont usually want and old fool or loon to be amongst thier ranks. if you feel thier discretion or right to choose is elitist well tough tittie.

Yeah? So what are you going to do, whine about it? People can claim any title they want in this country, it's called free speech. You can get your knickers into a twist because they're giving YOU a bad name, but the only discretion you have is to not let them join your tradition or coven.

[Elderbush]

ancestral_lee, I'm not trying to be combative and I am enjoying this discussion. I hope you take it in that way.

You said "from what you are saying youd give them equal standing with those people who have gained admittance to a coven and worked to get where they are."

Equal standing where? No one who isn't part of my tradition is invited to the private meetings. I don't know of any traditions that let the general public come to their meetings.

As for a public forum, people who belong to a tradition can be smart or stupid just like people who do not belong to a tradition.

Where is it you are afraid that people who do not belong to a tradition will have equal standing?

[Lunacie]

thats what being said here, anyone could pick up a book, read it, self initiate and as far as you are concerned they have the right to call themself a Wiccan. whereas to gain initiation into a coven you have to work for it, therefore by calling youself Wiccan it shows you have already proven yourself to the HP and Hps. its almost like a qualification. not everyone who begins thier training to get initiated gets it.

by calling youself wiccan it implies you have already studied for a year and a day, after that your degree informs how much extra work you have done.

the alternative other people on here agree with is that in theory i could pick up a book - find the self initiation page, do it and BINGO - im Wiccan in 5 minutes.

Apparently we aren't reading the same post. :eyebrow:

I haven't seen anyone here say that it's that easy or simple to become a Wiccan. All I've been saying is that working and learning and following the Wiccan path should be recognized as being qualified to be a Wiccan whether the work was done within a traditional coven or not.

I could go back through every post in the thread to look for someone who said picking up a book, reading the page on self-initiation, and following the instructions makes anyone a Wiccan - but I don't remember seeing any post like that so I'm not going to bother.

By the way, not every tradition uses a degree system.

I'm sorry you feel it somehow devalues your spirituality and connection to your matron/patron god/ess and your coven by having other people make spurious claims. I hope your coven mates don't feel that way about you. I know the gods could care less.

[ancestral_lee]

Yeah? So what are you going to do, whine about it?........ it's called free speech..

damn right im gonna complain about it. after all the same free speach rules that let them call themselves wiccan, also allow me to say that they are talking shite.

lee

[Morgandria]

*sighs* I've suddenly lost interest in the conversation.

[Elderbush]

We were doing so well, too.

[ancestral_lee]

self initiation as a solitary can be done 5 minutes after picking up a book or it can be done after 5 years of hard work and study. how do you differentiate 5 minute from 5 year wiccans...

with initiated wiccans you know theyve done thier homework.


ok, well this has been fun and challenging, but we will have to agree to disagree.... on that note im bowing out because im already beginning to repeat myself.

thanks everyone, its been a joy :)




I haven't seen anyone here say that it's that easy or simple to become a Wiccan. All I've been saying is that working and learning and following the Wiccan path should be recognized as being qualified to be a Wiccan whether the work was done within a traditional coven or not.

.

[Qumran]

I expected this reaction, to be honest....

I have suffered through many a long and torturous debates with PASSIONATE arguments on both sides. It is an important question and I hope you take no offense when people, like myself, simply don't accept YOUR take on it, Morgandria. But before I comment further, allow me to say; many bright blessings to you on your path! :)

... we do believe Wicca to be an mystery, initiatory faith. Self-initiation is not possible...

... in YOUR tradition... according to the "we" you refer to...

...But by the definition of the word "initiate", self-initiation isn't possible...

...Not to split hairs, Morgandria, but, IMO, self-initiation does not make one less of an initiate unless you take a very narrow interpretation of the word.

According to "the American Heritage Dictionary," "initiate" is defined this way:

1- To cause to begin.
2- To introduce (a person) into a new field, interest, skill of activity.
3- To admit into membership, as with ceremonies or rituals.

At least, in this definition, it seems like there is enough latitude to include someone who introduces or initiates themselves - but you read it as you choose.

Having said that, I spent MANY years as part of a fundamentalist Christian religion and they DID NOT consider anyone to be "Christian" until they were baptized into that particular sect - no matter HOW much they believed in Jesus and did Christian works. Christians can't initiate themselves either. I suspect this may be comparable to your view on being Wiccan - people just can't claim to be Wiccan or adopt it by themselves.

...If you really have to have a word to describe your path or practices, make up your own - don't subvert a word to fit any number of things until it's meaningless....

This, Morgandria, is where the problem arises.

IMO, the very DEFINITION of Wicca is EVOLVING. Wicca will mean something different as time goes on. People will keep on calling themselves Wiccan, despite their ignorance of what Wicca actually meant in Gardner's time.

Of course, you and your coven can stick to traditional ways and definitions (someone SHOULD!) but change WILL happen - like it or not.

[Lunacie]

self initiation as a solitary can be done 5 minutes after picking up a book or it can be done after 5 years of hard work and study. how do you differentiate 5 minute from 5 year wiccans...

with initiated wiccans you know theyve done thier homework.


ok, well this has been fun and challenging, but we will have to agree to disagree.... on that note im bowing out because im already beginning to repeat myself.

thanks everyone, its been a joy :)

You like the doctor analogy, so lets go with that. There are a lot of folks out there who have "earned" their medical degree and can hang out a shingle and practice medicine. I'm not going to assume that they are all smart enough to use that degree well. I will use my judgment to decide which doctor I prefer to have treating me.

Hopefully we would also use our judgment to determine whether someone had more than a smidgen of an idea of what Wicca is really all about. There are plenty of people who haven't been initiated who have studied just as long and hard as the majority* of initiated Wiccans. IMO initiation should not be the sole criteria for the worthiness of a person to claim the title Wiccan.

Repeating something that no value to my mind isn't going to change it.

* there are bad apples in every barrel, even in traditional Wiccan covens

[juliaki]

To summarize the two sides of the spectrum:


Side 1 says that to be a Wiccan, a person must go through specific training, specific rites, have a connection to the divine that is fostered through the training, rites, and experiences that lead up to initiation, where the individual is guided through the process and then receives a transfer of that which binds the tradition together to include them within the great mystery of that faith.



Side 2 says that you can say "I'm a Wiccan" and blammo, you're a Wiccan. No knowledge, training, or experience required.


That pretty much sum up the viewpoints?

[Lunacie]

Side 2 in your summation has not been posting on this thread.

[Elderbush]

To summarize the two sides of the spectrum:


Side 1 says that to be a Wiccan, a person must go through specific training, specific rites, have a connection to the divine that is fostered through the training, rites, and experiences that lead up to initiation, where the individual is guided through the process and then receives a transfer of that which binds the tradition together to include them within the great mystery of that faith.



Side 2 says that you can say "I'm a Wiccan" and blammo, you're a Wiccan. No knowledge, training, or experience required.


That pretty much sum up the viewpoints?

LOL!! Extremes again.

I wonder what it is that people are so afraid of that they have to demonize everyone who isn't like them.

[Lunacie]

So, the kids are gone off for the weekend with their daddy and all is quiet, so I took a few minutes to look back through this thread for those troubling posts that said "anyone can do anything and call it Wicca", and they can "self-initiate and call themselves Wiccan" And you know what? The only ones who even brought it up were the people who claim you can't be Wiccan unless you've studied for years and been initiated into a traditional coven.

Piffle.

That's creating a straw-man argument, and it doesn't prove anything in a proper discussion or debate.

[ancestral_lee]

Lady redhawk If you follow the Wiccan beliefs and ethics, then you are Wiccan if you so choose to call yourself - solitary or not.

i.e you dont need initiation to be wiccan, ergo. anyone can do it whenever they want be that 5 minutes or 5 years

Lunacie post 13 but you don't have to be initiated into the religion in order to be Wiccan

i.e you dont need initiation to be wiccan, ergo anyone can call themself wiccan with 5 minutes of 5 years of training

Lunacie post 43 I don't think you have to be initiated into a traditional Wiccan coven in order to be Wiccan.

i.e you dont need initiation to be wiccan, ergo anyone can call themself wiccan with 5 minutes of 5 years of training

seeing a pattern here? the gist is that you dont need initiation, you can call yourself wiccan whenever you want.


<sigh>

[Elderbush]

Yes, anyone call call themselves Wiccan. And your point is?

[Lunacie]

Lady Redhawk and I still did not say that we think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to read one page in a book and call themselves Wiccan. Of course they CAN do that. In fact I made a post about using judgment to discern whether they actually deserve to claim the title.

You are certainly free to interpret what you read, but that doesn't change what the poster actually wrote.

[ancestral_lee]

Yes, anyone call call themselves Wiccan. And your point is?


if only there was a smilie for banging your head against a wall

[Lunacie]

if only there was a smilie for banging your head against a wall

You mean this one... :bangyourh

:lol:

I'm sorry you feel bad because you can't convince us that you're right and we're wrong.

[juliaki]

Lady Redhawk and I still did not say that we think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to read one page in a book and call themselves Wiccan. Of course they CAN do that. In fact I made a post about using judgment to discern whether they actually deserve to claim the title.

You are certainly free to interpret what you read, but that doesn't change what the poster actually wrote.


So what qualifications do you feel are required for someone to be Wiccan?

[Lunacie]

I know I've posted them on another thread around here, let me see if I can remember where that was...

Okay, found that post:

To begin with – I feel initiation is important for belonging to a tradition or a coven, but I believe that one can experience being initiated by the gods and connecting with that energy without belonging to a coven or a tradition. I myself experienced both, and feel that for me the inward initiation had to come before the outward initiation into the coven (not a traditional coven).

A Wiccan believes that the divine is represented by a male and a female presence, a god and a goddess that balance each other and complete each other, each fulfilling a certain role in the cosmos; embodied by a multitude of individual gods and goddesses.

I call on the quarters/elements for many things, including doing ritual. For me this one is core. For many the use of tools to represent the elements is core. Unless I’m doing a ritual I don’t use any tools except for the tool of my mind and my connection with the elements.

The Reed I do not feel is core, especially when it is misquoted as “Harm None”, which is virtually impossible. The Law of Return or Balance I do believe is core.

The Sabbats I feel are core, and also the Esbats.

Casting a circle is also core, but I will admit that I only do this when performing a group ritual; otherwise I depend on my house wards and personal shielding.

For me, Witchcraft is also core (magic and more).

I understand that for most, the Great Rite is core.

Responsibility for our actions is core in my opinion.

Also personal growth or improvement is core.

And I wish you all a merry esbat (full moon and it's a beauty tonight).


Arrghhhh, I don't seem to be able to edit that all into one quote the way it started out.

[morningstar2651]

I have no desire to be a HPS and i am well beyond 13. I do not want to be part of a Coven becuase I DO NOT do crowds of people well at all. I get very agitated...its just not a good thing. That and the fact there are people who say "You HAVE to join a Coven...."
I have access to numerous Covens in and around my area but again....NOT my thing.
Who says you have to join a coven? Who even says you have to be Wiccan? Who says you have to be a theist? Who really cares what you believe?

[morningstar2651]

So what qualifications do you feel are required for someone to be Wiccan?
Dedication. If you're a dedicant, then you have dedicated yourself to the religion. You can't initiate yourself into an already-existing tradition.

[ancestral_lee]

You mean this one... :bangyourh

:lol:

I'm sorry you feel bad because you can't convince us that you're right and we're wrong.

no need to feel sorry for me love, im just narked that after making my point over and over some people still understand... hence i feel like im banging my head against a wall. im not trying to convince you im right and you are wrong, im trying to get you to understand what im saying in the first place, which is proving surprisingly difficult for some people.

[Elderbush]

no need to feel sorry for me love, im just narked that after making my point over and over some people still understand... hence i feel like im banging my head against a wall. im not trying to convince you im right and you are wrong, im trying to get you to understand what im saying in the first place, which is proving surprisingly difficult for some people.

:)

Yes, anyone can say that they are Wiccan, at least in the US. (or say that they are Christian or Buddhist or Discordian, etc.)

It is part of free speach.

I understand that you want to be able to control the word Wiccan and force everyone to accept your definition for it.

How do you plan to do that?

[Lunacie]

I believe I actually do get your point - that you believe a person absolutely must be initiated into a traditional Wiccan coven in order to legimately call oneself a Wiccan.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't have to agree with you.

If that's not the point you're making, please feel free to explain further. I am listening.

[Elderbush]

Oh you put it better than I did!

[Lunacie]

You asked a really good question!

[ancestral_lee]

I believe I actually do get your point - that you believe a person absolutely must be initiated into a traditional Wiccan coven in order to legimately call oneself a Wiccan.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't have to agree with you.

If that's not the point you're making, please feel free to explain further. I am listening.

its ok, i wasnt referring to you lunacie.

its fairly clear you dont agree, hey ho.

[ancestral_lee]

:)

Yes, anyone can say that they are Wiccan, at least in the US. (or say that they are Christian or Buddhist or Discordian, etc.)

It is part of free speach.

I understand that you want to be able to control the word Wiccan and force everyone to accept your definition for it.

How do you plan to do that?

you can call yourself a plum if you want, it doesnt make it true though.

you have right to call yourself Wiccan just as i have the right to point out you are wrong.

i dont recall mentioing i want to control anything, merely point out the errors you are making.

lee

[Lunacie]

you can call yourself a plum if you want, it doesnt make it true though.

you have right to call yourself Wiccan just as i have the right to point out you are wrong.

i dont recall mentioing i want to control anything, merely point out the errors you are making.

lee

Wanting to "merely point out the errors" someone else is making rarely involves banging your head against the wall. After you point something out once and then repeat yourself to make sure you've been understood, anything further certainly appears to be trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong, or that you're trying to force others to accept your definition. :(

[juliaki]

I know I've posted them on another thread around here, let me see if I can remember where that was...

Okay, found that post:
(snip)




Ironically, what you define as a Wiccan would pretty much make every Wiccan I know (whether they claim to be Wiccan as a solitary practitioner or are Wiccan based on coven initiation) not Wiccan?

Also, I don't see any difference between what you've said makes someone a Wiccan and what could make someone a Pagan or make someone a witch. Is there a way you differentiate between different Pagan paths, based on the requirements that you've listed?

And yes, it was beautiful outside tonight... a little cold, so I was thankful for the cauldron, but simply lovely.

[Lunacie]

Ironically, what you define as a Wiccan would pretty much make every Wiccan I know (whether they claim to be Wiccan as a solitary practitioner or are Wiccan based on coven initiation) not Wiccan?

Also, I don't see any difference between what you've said makes someone a Wiccan and what could make someone a Pagan or make someone a witch. Is there a way you differentiate between different Pagan paths, based on the requirements that you've listed?

And yes, it was beautiful outside tonight... a little cold, so I was thankful for the cauldron, but simply lovely.

Would you want to go into a little detail as to what you think is incorrect about my list of core beliefs? In talking to quite a number of other Wiccans (whether coven initiated or in an eclectic tradition or solitary) there has been agreement on this particular list - which by the way did not originate with me but with a BTW. It was agreed that some traditions insist on initiation, some insist on being skyclad, and a few other things that mostly vary by tradition.

[ancestral_lee]

Wanting to "merely point out the errors" someone else is making rarely involves banging your head against the wall. After you point something out once and then repeat yourself to make sure you've been understood, anything further certainly appears to be trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong, or that you're trying to force others to accept your definition. :(

i have a habit of repeating what im trying to get across until it sinks in, in some cases one message will do, in others it takes a while.

can you guess how it went in this thread? :weirdsmil

[Lunacie]

:eyebrow:
Which pretty much confirms that Elderbush and I were right about what you've been trying to do.
:goodgrief

[Elderbush]

It has sunk in, really it has. Has it sunk in that others do not agree with your definition of Wicca and that you cannot control what other people call themselves or how they define Wicca?

You can tell them you do not think they are Wiccan and they can reply with a polite or impolite version of "I don't agree with you."

An easier place to have control is on the tradition level. Have you thought about that?

[ancestral_lee]

:eyebrow:
Which pretty much confirms that Elderbush and I were right about what you've been trying to do.
:goodgrief

you seem to be confusing ramming something down someones throat with the written equivalent of speaking slowly and clearly to somebody who cant grasp what you are saying.

[ancestral_lee]

glad to see it has sunk in.

oh im sure its far more polite to sinly post " i agree with you" or "i disagree with you", but it doent lead to very interesting discussion, hence this has become more in depth.

i will explain this clearly and simply for you seeing as its the second time im having to say it.

i.

am.

not.

out.

to.

control.

anyone.


It has sunk in, really it has. Has it sunk in that others do not agree with your definition of Wicca and that you cannot control what other people call themselves or how they define Wicca?

You can tell them you do not think they are Wiccan and they can reply with a polite or impolite version of "I don't agree with you."

An easier place to have control is on the tradition level. Have you thought about that?

[Elderbush]

Yes you are.

You are trying to control who is called or calls themselves Wiccan by defining the word your way.

[Lunacie]

you seem to be confusing ramming something down someones throat with the written equivalent of speaking slowly and clearly to somebody who cant grasp what you are saying.

I believe you are the one who is confused here. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they can't grasp what you're saying. It simply means that they disagree.

You have been told that initiation is necessary for someone to claim that they are Wiccan, and you have believed that. I have thought long and hard about the issue of initiation, I have talked to many Wiccans (initiated and not initiated), and I have reached the conclusion that it is not necessary. Speaking slowly and clearly and repeating yourself endlessly is not likely to convince me that you are right and I am wrong. You have not told us of any reason beyond "it's tradition" and "that's how Gardner set it up" for initiation to be necessary. That's simply not enough to convince me.

[juliaki]

Sure....keeping in mind that I'm not Wiccan, so I'm just going by the beliefs expressed to me by those who are:

embodied by a multitude of individual gods and goddesses.

Not all Wiccans see the divine as manifested in individual gods and goddesses, but rather that all aspects of gods and goddesses are part of the larger whole of male and female divinity... some go so far as to say that individual gods and goddesses don't exist, except in the context that we have aspected them. On the other hand, there's a lot of religions out there that have the view of multiple individual gods and goddesses.

I call on the quarters/elements for many things, including doing ritual. For me this one is core.

Not all Wiccans call quarters for all rites. Also, there may be a huge difference in how each quarter and element align, but that's not something that you expressly covered.

For many the use of tools to represent the elements is core. Unless I’m doing a ritual I don’t use any tools except for the tool of my mind and my connection with the elements.

Do to some issues that come up regarding what exactly the tools are, the suggestion of using the tools to represent elements wouldn't quite fit....and the lack of tools in ritual would bring about some interesting differences of intent.

The Reed I do not feel is core, especially when it is misquoted as “Harm None”, which is virtually impossible. The Law of Return or Balance I do believe is core.

AAAACK! Pet peeve time. The editor in me cringes when I see mention of the "Reed". ;)

For me, one of the things that defines Wicca is the Rede. It is something that sets Wicca different from other religions, even if they share similar core values. I personally hate the whole "harm none" nonsense...but then again, I only hear that from folks who have tossed on the term "Wiccan" without having much knowledge behind them.

The Sabbats I feel are core, and also the Esbats.

They tend to be core in a lot of Pagan paths.... so how do you differentiate between a Wiccan sabbat and a non-Wiccan Pagan sabbat?

Casting a circle is also core, but I will admit that I only do this when performing a group ritual; otherwise I depend on my house wards and personal shielding.

That statement seems a bit contradictory. Either it is core or it is optional...and since it isn't something you do every time, it sounds optional. (And I'm with you on that...there's a lot of times when I don't cast a circle because it isn't needed for what I'm doing.)

For me, Witchcraft is also core (magic and more).

I'm going to reserve comment on that to see what the "and more" bit is....

I understand that for most, the Great Rite is core.

And that's something I wonder about a solitary practitioner trying to do on their own...aspecting both male and female divinity at the same time. I suppose that there would be some hermaphrodite Wiccans out there that could do it...I've never met one, however.

Responsibility for our actions is core in my opinion.

Some folks who are strict believers in the "old laws" of Wicca would say that responsibility has its place, but there's also times *not* to take responsibility for one's actions.

Also personal growth or improvement is core.

If we include all self-proclaimed solitary Wiccans under this statement, I've seen a *lot* who don't give two licks about personal growth or improvement. They're in it for the power trip. They'll admit it readily. They want to shoot fireballs from their fingers and vanquish demons, so Wicca is a "convenient" way to try and figure out how to do it but still sound like they're following a religious aspect.

The biggest issue I have with that list is that it doesn't seem to specify anything that is specific to Wicca and Wicca alone.... I know lots of Pagans that would qualify under that list. So what is it that you see about Wicca as you define it that makes it different from any ol' Pagan belief system?

[Ben Gruagach]

This is one of the never-ending debates in our community. And as others have pointed out, it's also a never-ending debate in other religious communities too -- there are lots of Christian sects which feel they are the only "true" Christians, and all the others don't deserve to use the label.

There are some historical details though which might add something to the discussion.

1. When Gerald Gardner did his promoting of Wicca, he presented it as just plain old witchcraft. He actually didn't use the word "Wica" (Wicca) except in a few rare instances. The way he presented things was just the way he claimed he was taught to do things, and the way he thought they should be done. When he did use the word Wica (Wicca) it was really just a synonym for witch rather than an attempt to specify a specific type of witch. This left Wicca open for pretty much anyone else to come forward and start promoting their own versions of witchcraft or Wicca. If Gardner had been clear that he was starting something unique, and that it was called Wicca to distinguish it from everything else, then we might not be having this debate at all.

2. Initiation, when you study what it is and what it means in a religious sense, is really two distinct things: 1) a recognition of status in a specific group by authorized members of that group, or 2) a personal spiritual experience where you have direct contact with the Divine. A lot of religious groups claim that they are bestowing both things on their members, but in reality humans can only ever bestow the first type -- the second type is up to the Divine to grant. And writers such as Dion Fortune (in her book "The Training and Work of the Initiate" for instance) make it very clear that a person can get all the type 1 initiations in the world and never have a type 2 experience. And similarly, many people have had type 2 initiations without ever having type 1.

The interesting historical note about initiation is that in the early days of Wicca people didn't start their training until AFTER they had their first degree initiation. Making people work for that first initiation was a later development. In fact, some famous Wiccan figures (Alex Sanders for example) were known to initiate pretty much anyone without any real determination of the candidate's dedication or seriousness. Janet and Stewart Farrar used to say that Alex would have initiated the mailman if he stood still long enough.

3. Fred Lamond, the oldest living Wiccan to have worked with Gerald Gardner (he was initiated into Gardner's coven back when Doreen Valiente was Gardner's high priestess) has said in his book "Fifty Years of Wicca" that Gardner told them the Book of Shadows was intended to be the witch's personal workbook and not a holy bible -- that each witch should feel free to add or toss out whatever they felt made sense. Perhaps Gardner changed his mind later on, or some of the later Gardnerian high priests and high priestesses changed their mind about this, but Gardner didn't consider his system to be unchangeable by any means at the start. (More proof of this: he told Doreen Valiente to go ahead and rewrite the Book of Shadows he was using to run the coven -- and she did! You can read all about it in her book "The Rebirth of Witchcraft.")

4. Some of the early and very influential Wiccans started the ball rolling on this whole self-initiation thing. Doreen Valiente (you remember her -- one of Gardner's first and most influential high priestesses) provided a self-initiation ritual in one of her published books. Ray Buckland, the man credited with bringing Gardnerian Wicca to the United States, also provided a self-initiation ritual in his book for the Seax-Wica denomination he invented as an alternative for those who wanted to become involved in Wicca but who couldn't find a Gardnerian coven to initiate them. I'm sure others have included self-initiation or self-dedication rituals as well but it does say something when such key figures as Valiente and Buckland do it.

5. Some of the oldest Wiccan denominations got their start under what people today dismiss as "uber-fluffy." Alex Sanders was turned down by Gardner and various Gardnerian elders because they didn't like him, but Alex convinced a female Gardnerian initiate to do the deed and give him a first degree initiation. He then got his hands on the Gardnerian Book of Shadows through that initiate, copied it out, and then disappeared for a while. Not long after he popped up with his own (slightly different) Book of Shadows, declared he was initiated by his grandmother when he was nine years old, and within a very short time had legions of his own initiates and had declared himself the King of the Witches. His own high priestess, Maxine (who I have enormous respect for) was given her third degree initiation by the time she was eighteen years old (Alex was in his thirties.)

Alex's story sounds an awful lot like the "fluffy not-real-Wiccans" that so many people sneer at. Yet look at the Alexandrian tradition today! Was Alex not a "real Wiccan" when he started his denomination? Who is to say then that any of the current "fluffy" crowd are less worthy?

Others have pointed out that no one denomination has the right to dictate to everyone else who is and isn't a Wiccan. Let's keep that in mind. Certainly the authorities of each denomination have authority over their own groups. Outside their groups their authority means very little. Wicca as a whole does not have a central authority to dictate to us what we must believe, whether we must belong to covens or not, how we must practice. In my opinion that is one of our community's greatest STRENGTHS. If I'd wanted to be part of an authoritarian, hierarchical religion I would have joined one. There are plenty of Christian, Jewish, and other types of religions that are all about the hierarchy and the authority structures. Wicca though, even within many of the established denominations like Gardnerian, are structured around smaller groups with explicitly recognized autonomy.

The closest thing that some (but not all) Wiccans recognize as a "Wiccan Law" (but is really only advice) is the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm none, do what you will." That leaves a lot of room for diversity. And coupled with another popular Wiccan teaching, the Charge of the Goddess, we have the Goddess Herself telling us, "All acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." It seems to me that Wicca encourages us to celebrate our diversity rather than try to force everyone to conform to some arbitrary dogma.

Just some things to think about...

[Little Billy]

Um, another thing...what qualifies someone as a "TRUE" Wiccan?

[Elderbush]

Groan - not going there!

Ben, your post was really inspired and informative. Wicca has changed a lot over the years and it is good to remember the beginnings. Thank you.

About Lunacie's list, if you don't mind me participating, I would have added a belief that everything is a part of the divine, seasonal celebrations rather than sabbats, a willingness to borrow from other religions what works, the goal of growing ever closer and further developing a relationship with the gods/divine, and accepting that there are consequences for ones actions. Circles and visualizations are a central to the practices but I don't think a circle has to be cast every time one interacts with one's gods.

[Lunacie]

Sure....keeping in mind that I'm not Wiccan, so I'm just going by the beliefs expressed to me by those who are:

So, why do you care then?

Not all Wiccans see the divine as manifested in individual gods and goddesses, but rather that all aspects of gods and goddesses are part of the larger whole of male and female divinity... some go so far as to say that individual gods and goddesses don't exist, except in the context that we have aspected them. On the other hand, there's a lot of religions out there that have the view of multiple individual gods and goddesses.

Sorry, but in my talking to other Wiccans and reading and studying, I'd say that belief in a multitude of gods and goddesses is core, although I understand that a few do indeed see the divine as an uber god with individual aspects. And I never said it was a unique Wiccan belief. Very few Wiccan beliefs are unique to Wicca.

Not all Wiccans call quarters for all rites. Also, there may be a huge difference in how each quarter and element align, but that's not something that you expressly covered.

Now that's just quibbling. No, not all Wiccans call the quarters for all rituals and I didn't say that was the case. Why would it have been necessary for me to specify that not all Wiccans associate Air with the East, etc.? The core part of the belief is that the majority of Wiccans do call the Quarters/Elements when they cast a circle and do ritual. If I'm doing solo energy work (or a spell) I may only call on one element or perhaps only divine energy, but for casting a circle in a ritual setting it is pretty standard to call the Quarters/Elements.

Do to some issues that come up regarding what exactly the tools are, the suggestion of using the tools to represent elements wouldn't quite fit....and the lack of tools in ritual would bring about some interesting differences of intent.

I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear that the first part of that statement had to do with group work and the second part had to do with my working alone. When one is working with a group it is necessary for that group to agree as much as possible on things like which tool represents which element. When working solitary there is no confusion at all.

AAAACK! Pet peeve time. The editor in me cringes when I see mention of the "Reed". ;)

What? You're fussing because I made a typo? People do that from time to time. Deal with it. You used the wrong spelling of "due" in your remark about using tools. AAAACK! ;)

For me, one of the things that defines Wicca is the Rede. It is something that sets Wicca different from other religions, even if they share similar core values. I personally hate the whole "harm none" nonsense...but then again, I only hear that from folks who have tossed on the term "Wiccan" without having much knowledge behind them.

The Wiccan Rede is a relatively new addition to Wicca, not part of the original set of beliefs. For you, it defines Wicca. That's fine. There are a great number of Wiccans who don't accept it as defiining Wicca, especially since it is usually misquoted and misunderstood.

They tend to be core in a lot of Pagan paths.... so how do you differentiate between a Wiccan sabbat and a non-Wiccan Pagan sabbat?

A lot of religions share some similar beliefs and practices. I think it's pretty hard to find a belief in any religion that isn't shared by some other religion. That doesn't make a particular belief or practice core to that religion. I'm not really that familiar with other Pagan celebrations of the sabbats to make any comparison.

That statement seems a bit contradictory. Either it is core or it is optional...and since it isn't something you do every time, it sounds optional. (And I'm with you on that...there's a lot of times when I don't cast a circle because it isn't needed for what I'm doing.)

Why is it hard to understand that some things are necessary when working in a group and not so necessary or covered by something else when working alone? If you're not Wiccan, what difference does it make whether you cast a circle, it may not be core for your religion or path.

I'm going to reserve comment on that to see what the "and more" bit is....

Most folks think what sets Witchcraft apart is an emphasis on magic, but there is much "more" to the Craft than using magic.

And that's something I wonder about a solitary practitioner trying to do on their own...aspecting both male and female divinity at the same time. I suppose that there would be some hermaphrodite Wiccans out there that could do it...I've never met one, however.

Since I don't believe the Great Rite is necessarily core, there's no point in me debating this one.

Some folks who are strict believers in the "old laws" of Wicca would say that responsibility has its place, but there's also times *not* to take responsibility for one's actions.

How about taking responsibility for knowing which time is which?

If we include all self-proclaimed solitary Wiccans under this statement, I've seen a *lot* who don't give two licks about personal growth or improvement. They're in it for the power trip. They'll admit it readily. They want to shoot fireballs from their fingers and vanquish demons, so Wicca is a "convenient" way to try and figure out how to do it but still sound like they're following a religious aspect.

Yeah? I never said that everyone who claimed to be a Wiccan meets the core criteria, or even MY criteria.

The biggest issue I have with that list is that it doesn't seem to specify anything that is specific to Wicca and Wicca alone.... I know lots of Pagans that would qualify under that list. So what is it that you see about Wicca as you define it that makes it different from any ol' Pagan belief system?

Maybe those Pagans are really Wiccans and they haven't discovered it or admitted it to themselves yet?

[Lunacie]

Ben, thanks for pointing out the two kinds of initiation. I had forgotten all about that lovely discussion. (I hate having A.D.D.)

Elderbush, my list wasn't all-inclusive. Thanks for adding some things, although I don't agree that all of your additions are core. ;) Of course my list of core beliefs is only what it seems the majority of Wiccans do manage to agree on, not something that is necessary to claim the title of Wiccan.

[Little Billy]

i notice it seems to be in the US that that wicca has become a free for all where any 14 year old can read a book and suddenly decalre himself a high priest - thats an insult to all those HP and HPS out there who have spent the time to study, work thier arses off and run a coven.

lee

Why would that bother you? Hell, I heard a 12 year old say he was a ninja once, and I didn't see any pissed off ninjas.

Of course, being ninjas, I wouldn't have seen them ANYWAY, but you know what I mean.

[Lunacie]

Why would that bother you? Hell, I heard a 12 year old say he was a ninja once, and I didn't see any pissed off ninjas.

Of course, being ninjas, I wouldn't have seen them ANYWAY, but you know what I mean.


Little Billy has a point. I wanted to say something about how someone saying they are a Wiccan when I don't agree doesn't mean all Wiccans should feel insulted, but I couldn't figure out how to word it.

[juliaki]

Getting ready to head out to Disney and have a veve to do tonight, so I need to keep this fairly brief. ;)

So, why do you care then?

Mostly I'm just enjoying the fun of debate. On the other hand, some underlying issues about the vast majority of people who call themselves "Wiccan" do affect me, even though I'm not Wiccan (largely because cowans tend to paint all Craft traditions with the same paintbrush). Last year, there were a couple of "Wiccans" who desecrated a church. They said in their statements to the police that it was their "Wiccan right" to destroy Christianity. Now, do I believe they are Wiccan? Nope...but they met the criteria that you had laid out...so I guess that by your definition, they were. Those are not the kind of people that I want to be associated with in the public eye, however.


Sorry, but in my talking to other Wiccans and reading and studying, I'd say that belief in a multitude of gods and goddesses is core, although I understand that a few do indeed see the divine as an uber god with individual aspects. And I never said it was a unique Wiccan belief. Very few Wiccan beliefs are unique to Wicca.

Which again begs the question, what makes Wicca as Wicca instead of something else? It also lays the groundwork for "Wicca is whatever you want it to be", including the people mentioned above.


What? You're fussing because I made a typo? People do that from time to time. Deal with it. You used the wrong spelling of "due" in your remark about using tools. AAAACK! ;)

That's assuming that it was a typo and not an attempt to malign a spiritual text you do not agree with. I'll take your word it was the former, however.


A lot of religions share some similar beliefs and practices. I think it's pretty hard to find a belief in any religion that isn't shared by some other religion. That doesn't make a particular belief or practice core to that religion. I'm not really that familiar with other Pagan celebrations of the sabbats to make any comparison.

There are many common similarities because we all do touch the same divine. Yet, if we are to say that religion A is different from religion B, there must be something that A has which B does not and that B has which A does not.

For instance, I find that Eclectic NeoWicca is a very distinctly unique religion. It is the only religion out there that says that anything can be combined in any combination and still work the same as any other combination, for it is intent that drives everything. I haven't run into any other religion that embraces that belief.

Most folks think what sets Witchcraft apart is an emphasis on magic, but there is much "more" to the Craft than using magic.

Even though I'll likely not get a chance to respond to this because it will be buried in the thread by the time I get back, I'm curious what specific aspects you see that are the "more than magic" bit. (I'm not disagreeing with you that they're there...I'm just curious what you see that may or may not be how I see it.)

How about taking responsibility for knowing which time is which?

Not always a requirement, no.

Yeah? I never said that everyone who claimed to be a Wiccan meets the core criteria, or even MY criteria.

What good is having "the" core criteria if it is not necessary for anyone to meet it?

Maybe those Pagans are really Wiccans and they haven't discovered it or admitted it to themselves yet?

Could be, although my guess is that the reverse is more often true....that Wicca is the place where some people say "close enough" instead of trying to pursue "know thyself." I'll admit that there's likely some of the former, however. There are also Pagans who would be highly insulted at the idea that someone was telling them that they were Wiccans when they know from experience, training, knowledge, and study that they are not.

[Arie]

Wow. Next time i wont kick the hornets nest.

Soitaries have been around longer then Covens. It took a Solitary to start the first Coven. So why is it a "bad" thing to be a Solitary?

I was Baptized TWICE. Once as a Christian and the second time as an Armenian Orthodox. One believes in God the other in Allah.....so where do I belong????????? In my eyes I belong where I say I belong NOT where others do. That includes my "choice" to NOT join a Coven. Does that mean I am NOT a Wiccan????? NO!! In someone elses eyes maybe but NOT in mine. Personally I dont give a flying bats butt what others think of my "choice".

Yes there are people who says its "The Coven way or the highway". I'm sorry but that is closed minded thinking. What if a person leaves their Coven because they move out of state? Are they NOT a Wiccan anymore because they are no longer in a Coven?

Yes I started this debate or whatever and i am beginning to regret it.

[Elderbush]

Don't regret it! It was fun. There are in our religion both extremists and moderates, just like in every other religion. You are going to find out that we all have different opinions and that's a good thing. Debates help everyone decide what they personally believe and expose us to new or recycled thoughts. There are always those people who post very good information that teach everyone who reads the thread, as well.

[jcldragon]

In the exoteric religions, it is the external baptism or formal Initiation that is significant. In the esoteric Traditions, it is the inner realization of the the individual that is significant.

I believe that Compassion, Wisdom, & Knowledge are more significant than any piece of paper.

[Lunacie]

I agree with Elderbush, this has been a good debate/discussion. There wasn't any flaming or personal attacks, we've been trying to figure out whether there are some issues that are "make it or break it" as far as Wicca is concerned. Not suprisingly, there is little concensus. Being free to make these choices is a key component of Wicca. We like being free from having a heirarchy tell us what the laws are that we must follow in order to belong.

I applaud you for knowing where you belong spiritually and not caring so much whether others agree with you or not. Isn't that a wonderfully freeing feeling?

Yes there are people who says its "The Coven way or the highway". I'm sorry but that is closed minded thinking. What if a person leaves their Coven because they move out of state? Are they NOT a Wiccan anymore because they are no longer in a Coven?

The people who say you must be initiated and study with a coven would say that even if you move away, you have spent the time in study and that was acknowledged by your initiation.

I appreciate Ben G pointing out how initiation as a recognition by others that you have studied and been privy to the mysteries isn't the way it was set up, so why this insistence on having to do it that way these days in order to be a "proper Wiccan" in someone else's eyes? Piffle. Elitist bullhockey.

[Ben Gruagach]

I appreciate Ben G pointing out how initiation as a recognition by others that you have studied and been privy to the mysteries isn't the way it was set up, so why this insistence on having to do it that way these days in order to be a "proper Wiccan" in someone else's eyes? Piffle. Elitist bullhockey.

Just want to add something to that... I do think that it's important for groups (denominations, sects, whatever) to have systems and standards to determine who is authorized to be considered a High Priest and High Priestess in that specific denomination. Having minimal standards to meet help ensure the titles actually mean something.

But those titles only mean something within those specific denominations. And specific denominations definitely do not have the authority to tell everyone else who can use the label Wiccan. Wicca is bigger than any specific denomination. The Gardnerians don't own the term, neither do the Alexandrians, nor does any other denomination we can list off. So none of them can dictate to the rest of us who can call themselves Wiccan (no matter how much they dislike that.)

But they do get to set the rules about who can call themselves a member of their specific denomination, and who within that denomination can call themselves a High Priest or High Priestess.

[Arie]

I appreciate Ben G pointing out how initiation as a recognition by others that you have studied and been privy to the mysteries isn't the way it was set up, so why this insistence on having to do it that way these days in order to be a "proper Wiccan" in someone else's eyes? Piffle. Elitist bullhockey.

Thank you also to Ben G .....i couldnt remember who had said it. Elitist bullhockey....LOL

[ancestral_lee]

What if a person leaves their Coven because they move out of state? Are they NOT a Wiccan anymore because they are no longer in a Coven?

you remain Wiccan, you effectively take your initiation and degree with you. if you want to join another coven then you can do so and because your lineage and therefore initiator can be checked up - then can contact them to see if you are who you say you are.


perhaps solitary witches existed before gardner, but no Solitary Wiccans, after all gardner started it all. the increase in solitary wiccans has only come about in the past couple fo decades since the flood of books on the subject that say you can self initiate.

[Platinum Dove]

Arie, thank you for starting this thread, seriously! I was questioning the same thing after being told that after 9 years of learning on my own and within group structure, that I was not "Wiccan" because I was not (what later came out in conversation) Gardnerian or Alexandrian.

I agree with whoever said...elitist bullhockey!

[Lunacie]

Ancestral Lee, did you even read Ben G's post #103? I know that Ben has done a great deal of research and study on the history of Wicca and the people that were involved in the beginning, and I trust what he has to say about it. Check out the part where he writes about how the people who were actually initiated by Gardner wrote books describing self-initiation, and how Gardner himself told them to make whatever changes they thought were appropriate. Kiddo, it's giving me a headache to see you keep banging your head against the same wall over and over. There are a lot of Wiccans who don't think we need a wall at all.

Edited to correct a typo... oopsie.

[ancestral_lee]

yes i read bens post, but this was a reply to Arie's post on this page not Ben.

ive just double checked Aunty Doreen's Wicthcraft for tomorrow to find the 'self-initiation rite' and there it is on page 159. the thing is, its self initiation as witch, not a wiccan. in fact the word wiccan only appears half a dozen time thoughout the book, and and its a ref. to the rede and a periodical out there called The Wiccan. as i dont have pat or freds books to hand i cant check whether its a wiccan initiation or a witch initiation... perhaps somebody with them could check?

the initiation she gives is not the same as the initiation i went through, and that was unchanged going back to one HPS Gardner himself initiated.

the latest i have heard is that its perfectly fine for people to follow a wican inspired path but its just that, wicca inspired and not Wicca.

re. the wall.. i think you might be misunderstanding my metaphor. i mean something akin to pissing into the wind, flogging a dead horse, in other words what im saying isnt getting through or being understood.

Ancestral Lee, did you even read Ben G's post #103? I know that Ben has done a great deal of research and study on the history of Wicca and the people that were involved in the beginning, and I trust what he has to say about it. Check out the part where he writes about how the people who were actually initiated by Gardner wrote books describing self-initiation, and how Gardner himself told them to make whatever changes they thought were appropriate. Kiddo, it's giving me a headache to see you keep banging your head against the same wall over and over. There are a lot of Wiccans who don't think we need a wall at all.

Edited to correct a typo... oopsie.

[Elderbush]

To correct al little bit of misinformation, transferring your training and degrees only works within a tradition and only if the coven that you go to agrees. There can be differences within covens that are within a trad or so has been my experience.

Some traditions may take initiates from other traditions on a provisional status, or require extra training or they may not grant the circle/degree status that the person had in another tradition. They may refuse to acknowledge their degrees and make them start over.

Think of it like transferring to a new college. You may lose a lot of credits - if they will take you at all.

[ancestral_lee]

indeed, apologies if i didnt make that clear or mention it.

lee



To correct al little bit of misinformation, transferring your training and degrees only works within a tradition and only if the coven that you go to agrees. There can be differences within covens that are within a trad or so has been my experience.

Some traditions may take initiates from other traditions on a provisional status, or require extra training or they may not grant the circle/degree status that the person had in another tradition. They may refuse to acknowledge their degrees and make them start over.

Think of it like transferring to a new college. You may lose a lot of credits - if they will take you at all.

[Elderbush]

yes i read bens post, but this was a reply to Arie's post on this page not Ben.

ive just double checked Aunty Doreen's Wicthcraft for tomorrow to find the 'self-initiation rite' and there it is on page 159. the thing is, its self initiation as witch, not a wiccan. in fact the word wiccan only appears half a dozen time thoughout the book, and and its a ref. to the rede and a periodical out there called The Wiccan. as i dont have pat or freds books to hand i cant check whether its a wiccan initiation or a witch initiation... perhaps somebody with them could check?

the initiation she gives is not the same as the initiation i went through, and that was unchanged going back to one HPS Gardner himself initiated.

the latest i have heard is that its perfectly fine for people to follow a wican inspired path but its just that, wicca inspired and not Wicca.

re. the wall.. i think you might be misunderstanding my metaphor. i mean something akin to pissing into the wind, flogging a dead horse, in other words what im saying isnt getting through or being understood.


Um, they didn't call Wicca "Wicca" in those days. They called it "Witchcraft." If you read Ben's post you would have learned that Wicca is a later addition.

[Platinum Dove]

perhaps solitary witches existed before gardner, but no Solitary Wiccans, after all gardner started it all. the increase in solitary wiccans has only come about in the past couple fo decades since the flood of books on the subject that say you can self initiate.

Question...if Gardner can start his own tradition, what makes it any less valid if someone starts their own tradition? Heck, if Alex took Garner's BOS, changed a few things and came up with his own trad, since Garner and Alex's BOS are both on public domain, what prevents anyone else from doing the same thing?

[Lunacie]

<snip>
re. the wall.. i think you might be misunderstanding my metaphor. i mean something akin to pissing into the wind, flogging a dead horse, in other words what im saying isnt getting through or being understood.

Elderbush already dealt with the rest of the post and quite well too.

I believe banging your head against a wall, pissing into the wind and flogging a dead horse all mean pretty much the same thing. I certainly do "get it" that you don't feel understood. Please don't feel like what you're saying isn't getting through or that you're not being understood just because we don't agree with you. Allthough I suppose you may also be feeling that if only we really understood you we would agree with you. Sorry, but that isn't necessarily true. We have tried explaining why we don't agree and it has nothing to do with whether or not we understand you. We do understand you, we simply don't agree with you.

[Lunacie]

Question...if Gardner can start his own tradition, what makes it any less valid if someone starts their own tradition? Heck, if Alex took Garner's BOS, changed a few things and came up with his own trad, since Garner and Alex's BOS are both on public domain, what prevents anyone else from doing the same thing?

The elitists are saying that it is perfectly valid to start your own tradition, just as Gardner did, but unless your new tradition does things exactly the same way they do them and for exactly the same reasons then you need to come up with a different name because they were using Wicca first. It doesn't seem to matter to them that they may not be doing things exactly the same way Gardner did, or that Gardner himself didn't give a fig whether you copied him or not.

[Elderbush]

Probably if Gardner came back today, he would get himself kicked out of the Gardnerians for heresy, ever thought of that?:)

[ancestral_lee]

Probably if Gardner came back today, he would get himself kicked out of the Gardnerians for heresy, ever thought of that?:)

without going into too much detail... he does and he is welcomed.

[Arie]

This may be my own view but a Coven is much like a Cliche in High School. If you werent in one your werent cool.