USE OF THE WORD WICCA

[ncsweet]

Brass Bell Doll

Would someone be able to explain to me why they feel that it is impossible for an initiated and lineaged Wiccan who has received the Mysteries from their god and goddess to create new rituals which would impart the Mysteries equally well?

My understanding of it, is that you can add to the core (within reason), but you can't take away from it. So in theory, it seems that you could write new rituals (and I think many do - as this is what accounts for the differences between covens/trads) as long as you are maintaining the core.

Of course in general they are welcome to do whatever they want to, just that if they change the core too much, then it would no longer be acceptable to call it Wicca. This would apply to people such as Cunningham, Janet Farrar, etc... who have valid initiate status, but have then gone on to make changes that were not in keeping with the core material.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

ncsweet

My understanding of it, is that you can add to the core (within reason), but you can't take away from it. So in theory, it seems that you could write new rituals (and I think many do - as this is what accounts for the differences between covens/trads) as long as you are maintaining the core.

Of course in general they are welcome to do whatever they want to, just that if they change the core too much, then it would no longer be acceptable to call it Wicca. This would apply to people such as Cunningham, Janet Farrar, etc... who have valid initiate status, but have then gone on to make changes that were not in keeping with the core material.

What determines what is "core material"? I felt that the Mysteries were the heart and soul of Wicca, the core. My understandings stemmed from the words of other Wiccans as well as doctuments that show an almost casual disregard for the rituals by Gerald Gardner in his interaction with his High Priestesses.

Would you feel that it would be fair to call Morven less of a Wiccan than Ameth for the changes that were made to the Book of Shadows by Ameth's hand?

I find myself very confused because so much of this seems to contradict what the Wiccans I know say about their religion. One of the explanations I have heard for this is that Gardner is treated as a Christ figure who birthed a new spiritual pattern and that must attune others. I feel I have a hard time reconciling this with the presence of the Wiccan Gods as beings with their own will and intention for their priests and priestesses.  

[ncsweet]

Honestly, these are not questions that we are equipped to answer. We are not initiates, so at best we can go back and forth all day long with "my understanding of it is...", and still be nowhere. We can only tell you what we've heard from other initiates, and you can only tell us what you've heard from the same. If there are discrepancies between the two, it's not for any of us to say who is right or who is wrong, because we don't have that knowledge.

Whatever constitutes as core, is only known to initiates, however the impression I have gotten is that it includes more than just the mysteries themselves.

It is worth noting that not all BTW feel that Gardner is the "be all and end all" when it comes to Wicca. There are still those that have no problem calling it "ye old ancient religion", and doing so with a straight face. So my guess would be that is where the differences lie.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

ncsweet

Honestly, these are not questions that we are equipped to answer. We are not initiates, so at best we can go back and forth all day long with "my understanding of it is...", and still be nowhere. We can only tell you what we've heard from other initiates, and you can only tell us what you've heard from the same. If there are discrepancies between the two, it's not for any of us to say who is right or who is wrong, because we don't have that knowledge.

I suppose that is fair. I do thank you for your time in explaining where you are coming from though.

ncsweet

Whatever constitutes as core, is only known to initiates, however the impression I have gotten is that it includes more than just the mysteries themselves.

If I misrepresented this, then I do apologize. My understanding is similar, in that there are Mysteries with a big M and mysteries with a small m, referring to secret knowledge that initiates are trained in.

ncsweet

It is worth noting that not all BTW feel that Gardner is the "be all and end all" when it comes to Wicca. There are still those that have no problem calling it "ye old ancient religion", and doing so with a straight face. So my guess would be that is where the differences lie.

I feel that may be too stark a categorization. The ones I know believe that Wicca existed before Gardner, since it includes other covens that descended from the New Forest Coven. I have also read and heard it confirmed that as Gardner wanted more and more publicity, many people took a step back from him.  

[HorsesOfTheNight]

Hello everyone! I’m new to the guild. You can call me Horses! I’m not Wiccan (I’m eclectic neo-pagan), but I find Wicca very interesting and love learning about it.

Brass Bell:

Quote:

I feel that may be too stark a categorization. The ones I know believe that Wicca existed before Gardner, since it includes other covens that descended from the New Forest Coven. I have also read and heard it confirmed that as Gardner wanted more and more publicity, many people took a step back from him.

I'm just a little confused. From what I have learned (from people who are Wiccan), that Wicca did not exist before Gardner and that Wicca is relatively "young" religion.  

[ncsweet]

HorsesOfTheNight

I'm just a little confused. From what I have learned (from people who are Wiccan), that Wicca did not exist before Gardner and that Wicca is relatively "young" religion.

Even though there have been scholarly/researched books published on the "origins" of Wicca, there are (apparently) still initiates who don't don't believe that to be true. They say that they have material/lore (oath-bound) that backs up that Wicca is older than Gardner, of course as non-initiates we have no way of verifying any of it.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

HorsesOfTheNight

I'm just a little confused. From what I have learned (from people who are Wiccan), that Wicca did not exist before Gardner and that Wicca is relatively "young" religion.

Wicca is realitively young, but Gerald Gardner claimed to have been initiated into a coven which was already using the term Wicca.

I feel that by looking at the time line of popular authors, and Gardner's claims, it's possible that there was a group who initiated him. Margaret Murray published The Witch-cult in Western Europe in 1921, and God of the Witches in 1933. Charles Godfrey Leland wrote Gyspsy Sorcery and Fortune Telling in 1891 and Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches in 1899. The first group of Co-Masons were formed in 1902 in London, and there is reasonable cause to suspect that other groups such as The Crotona Fellowship had practices that could have been influential in the New Forest Coven. This is around the same era that The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was created, and like the Co-Masons they included women amongst them.

Since Gerald Gardner claimed he was initiated in 1939, that would leave a few decades for a group reading some of the influential works of their time to form a loose coven and develop some general ideas about witchcraft. And this is even before we consider the influences of Thelema and the Spiritualist Movement.

Wicca doesn't need to be ancient to have existed before Gardner's introduction to it. I do feel I should apologize if I confused the issue. When I stated Wicca was around before Gardner, I was meaning to reference his involvement, not his birth.

While some feel that Gerald Gardner completely fabricated the claims of an initiation into the New Forest Coven, others feel there isn't enough evidence to say that.  

[HorsesOfTheNight]

Brass Bell: How do any of the book that you have listed deal with Wicca? Could you also please cite your sources.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

HorsesOfTheNight

Brass Bell: How do any of the book that you have listed deal with Wicca? Could you also please cite your sources.

Feel free to shorten it to Brass.

I feel there is a misunderstanding. I am not claiming that these books were about Wicca. I feel there is evidence which implies that people had taken these books and made a coven, and that they used the word Wicca to address themselves. Some time later, they initiated Gerald Gardner.

Gardner claims that the group existed in the books he wrote and Philip Heselton who is Wiccan and has published books about the origins of Wicca examined the material that Hutton did, in addition to the information he was privileged to as an initiate and supports the claim of a coven's existence.

Hutton is at a disadvantage because his research was limited because he wasn't an initiate, thus many of his conclusions rely on a lack of commentary or evidence for their support when it comes to information about the New Forest Coven and other early members of the religion.

Philip Heselton's conclusions are published in Wiccan Roots: Gerald Gardner and the Modern Witchcraft Revival which was released in 2000 and Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration released in 2001.

Gerald Gardner's claims about being initiated into a group already using the name are found in The Meaning of Witchcraft.  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

Brass Bell Doll

HorsesOfTheNight

I'm just a little confused. From what I have learned (from people who are Wiccan), that Wicca did not exist before Gardner and that Wicca is relatively "young" religion.

Wicca is realitively young, but Gerald Gardner claimed to have been initiated into a coven which was already using the term Wicca.

I feel that by looking at the time line of popular authors, and Gardner's claims, it's possible that there was a group who initiated him. Margaret Murray published The Witch-cult in Western Europe in 1921, and God of the Witches in 1933. Charles Godfrey Leland wrote Gyspsy Sorcery and Fortune Telling in 1891 and Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches in 1899. The first group of Co-Masons were formed in 1902 in London, and there is reasonable cause to suspect that other groups such as The Crotona Fellowship had practices that could have been influential in the New Forest Coven. This is around the same era that The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was created, and like the Co-Masons they included women amongst them.

Since Gerald Gardner claimed he was initiated in 1939, that would leave a few decades for a group reading some of the influential works of their time to form a loose coven and develop some general ideas about witchcraft. And this is even before we consider the influences of Thelema and the Spiritualist Movement.

Wicca doesn't need to be ancient to have existed before Gardner's introduction to it. I do feel I should apologize if I confused the issue. When I stated Wicca was around before Gardner, I was meaning to reference his involvement, not his birth.

While some feel that Gerald Gardner completely fabricated the claims of an initiation into the New Forest Coven, others feel there isn't enough evidence to say that.

All irrelevant, as NFC wasn't Wiccan. It was pre-Wiccan. Gardner claimed to have written the bulk of the orthopraxy himself, admitting what he had access to was sketchy at best. He supplemented from his experience in OTO etc. He claimed NFC had some Kabbalistic influences, yes, but the bulk of the ceremonialism, the vast majority of the rituals, are his and his alone.

Let's not pretend Leland's "Aradia" is anything but the fiction it is. Gardner (well, to be frank, Valiente) drew from Aradia for the Charge and other elements but it has little in common with actual Italian witchcraft, which was largely Catholic, let's be frank. This definitely wasn't something he got from NFC; it was something he took himself to work into his rite of Drawing Down the Moon. Valiente had a look at it, told him he was a terrible writer, and he dared her to do better. So she did. All this is fairly well established.

We have no basis for calling NFC Wiccan. They didn't use the word "Wicca". I have no idea why you thought they did - Gardner didn't even use the word to start off with.

Conversely, we know enough Wiccans, well informed of the relevant lore, who are adamant that Wicca started with Gardner. I am more inclined to trust them and to trust Hutton - particularly since, as initiates, they strongly support him and his work. I think Hutton's lack of initiation is an advantage as it means he's utterly unbiased. Backed up by those with access to Lore, I have no reason to think Wicca older than Gardner.

I know there are some on Amber and Jet who prefer a "lineage to NFC" rather than "lineage to Gardner" in deference to the lore. Whether they actually believe this I do not know - additionally I don't think a single person has claimed to have lineage to NFC without going through Gardner first. People did take steps away from Gardner for various reasons, but they were all his own initiates. Valiente did. Sanders did. I know many of them were uncomfortable with some of the laws and there are reports that if the coven held ritual without Gardner himself there was a lot less scourging going on.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Sanguina Cruenta

All irrelevant, as NFC wasn't Wiccan. It was pre-Wiccan. Gardner claimed to have written the bulk of the orthopraxy himself, admitting what he had access to was sketchy at best. He supplemented from his experience in OTO etc. He claimed NFC had some Kabbalistic influences, yes, but the bulk of the ceremonialism, the vast majority of the rituals, are his and his alone.

I feel it is worth noting that Wiccans often define Wicca as being traced back to the New Forest Coven, which would suggest other Wiccans who are not part of Gardner's line are Wiccan.

I also feel it is worth questioning why an initiate who popularized a term would be allowed to deny the use of it by those who initiated him.

Sanguina Cruenta

Let's not pretend Leland's "Aradia" is anything but the fiction it is.

I feel that the arguments that claim Aradia is purely fiction rest on a lack of evidence and character claims about Leland more than anything else.

Having said that, it is worth noting that none of my claims rest on it being fictional or factual.

Sanguina Cruenta

Gardner (well, to be frank, Valiente) drew from Aradia for the Charge and other elements but it has little in common with actual Italian witchcraft, which was largely Catholic, let's be frank. This definitely wasn't something he got from NFC; it was something he took himself to work into his rite of Drawing Down the Moon. Valiente had a look at it, told him he was a terrible writer, and he dared her to do better. So she did. All this is fairly well established.

We have no basis for calling NFC Wiccan. They didn't use the word "Wicca". I have no idea why you thought they did - Gardner didn't even use the word to start off with.

In Gardner's own books he claimed the New Forest Coven used the word.

Sanguina Cruenta

Conversely, we know enough Wiccans, well informed of the relevant lore, who are adamant that Wicca started with Gardner. I am more inclined to trust them and to trust Hutton - particularly since, as initiates, they strongly support him and his work. I think Hutton's lack of initiation is an advantage as it means he's utterly unbiased. Backed up by those with access to Lore, I have no reason to think Wicca older than Gardner.

While we know that there are claims by initiated Wiccans that Gardner made the whole thing up, we also have claims by early Wiccans and by Gardner and by later Wiccans who investigated those claims that contradict the conclusions of Hutton and others.

In the end, Hutton largely relies on his inability to find evidence, not on evidence to the contrary and the opinions of other Wiccans are in equal standing with the opinions of Wiccans who make arguments based on the words of Gardner and their own research into the claims he made.

Sanguina Cruenta

I know there are some on Amber and Jet who prefer a "lineage to NFC" rather than "lineage to Gardner" in deference to the lore. Whether they actually believe this I do not know - additionally I don't think a single person has claimed to have lineage to NFC without going through Gardner first.

Edith Woodford-Grimes is one such person whose lineage is reported not to trace back to Gardner, but instead to have initiated Gardner.

Her desire to keep her role as a witch private has often been used as evidence that Gardner's claims were false. I feel the major problem is that the position was contradicted by other eye witnesses from a time when she was more liberal in her participation, after all, Doreen Valiente was initiated in her home.

I can understand how someone would feel it is better to assume that there was no New Forest Coven because there is not popular evidence for it, but I feel that when such a leap is made, it is important to be honest about the lack of evidence not being enough to constitute proof.

In this regard, ncsweet is correct. As we are not initiated, we do not have a way to know what cannot be revealed to us. I choose to allow for the possibility that in the height of the Spiritualist Movement and other Occult Hellfire Clubs, the notion that a small group of people would join together and make a religion out of witchcraft based on earlier sources is feasible, and that their exploits may have included the word Wicca as Gardner spoke of in his books.  

[oMaori]

How can one go about being initiated as a witch independently, nd if you cant do that where is there a coven for me to be initiated as a witch, this is all so confusing @.@