Witch not Wiccan

Originally Posted by Alchymist

Your background is of vital importance because we all want to know on what authority are you telling the rest of us that we can or can't be witches?

Good Ol' Uncle Gerald was the first to popularise the term WICCA, to mean his own particular take on Goddess religion; he may have been initiated into a pre-existing coven in Southern England, but there is no corroborating evidence for this. He was certainly not the first to use the term "witch" in a positive light; this usage was common back to at least the 1500's and was also not exclusively a derogatory term used by Christians; see, for example, Reginald Scott, "The Discoverie of Witchcraft", 1584, Marlowe's "Doctor Faustus",1604, etc.

It might be fair to say that one cannot be a Gardnerian Wiccan without being initiated into a coven which can trace its lineage all the way back to Gardner; then there are Alexandrian Wiccans who tend to be even more exclusivist than the Gardnerians, despite the fact that it is not known that Alex Sanders was ever initiated by anyone; his claim to have been initiated by his grandmother has never been independently substantiated. There are other lineages that also lay claim to the term Wicca and argue loudly for their own exclusive use of it, but after a while all these arguments begin to sound drearily familiar and alike. "You can't be a Wiccan unless you......yada yada yada." I say let them have their word if they really want it so badly; the rest of us already have a much better one.

Thee word Witch does not belong to Gardner or to anyone else. It is simply not true to say that one can "only" learn Witchcraft through a coven. It probably is true to say that one cannot learn Witchcraft solely from books. Books are a great help, but Witchcraft (in contrast to Wicca, which is a religion) is exactly what it says it is:- a craft; and thus must be learned mainly through practical experience, just like any other craft. One can't learn metalsmithing or woodcarving solely from books either, and much the best way is to find an artisan and become his or her apprentice - but if the artisan is any good at all, he/she will also give you lots of books to read - and if you can't find a human teacher, books are a wonderful way to find information. It'll take you longer to become proficient; but if you apply yourself, and learn from your mistakes, become proficient you will. Exactly the same applies to the Craft of the Witch; read and practise, read and practise, for many, many years. If you can find a coven and an honest High Priest/ess, well, fine; if not, don't sweat it.

The problem, as I see it, with being a member of a coven is that it's fatally easy to become narrow-minded, to believe only what your High Priest/ess tells you and to fall into the trap of deciding that anyone who believes otherwise must therefore be "wrong". This is the way guru-worshipping cults begin, and I'm sure we must all have seen (and tried to avoid) those blank-eyed, zombie-like True Believers handing out pamphlets in bus stations, the sorry exemplars of the "one true faith and everyone else will burn in hell" mindset.

And I guess it's only fair for me to give you something of my own background. I'm a metalworker (apprenticed), a woodworker (mostly from books) and a Witch (initiated into two separate traditions, studied books and magazines and undertaken intense practical work for almost 50 years); also studied ritual magic(k), yoga, meditation, hermeticism, alchemy, sacred geometry, archaeology, UFOlogy, history and science (****c. Geology, M.Sc. Oceanography), written articles for publications as diverse as "Green Egg" and "Yachting Monthly" and annoyed a great many people who claim to have exclusive information about how things really are.

Blessed Be everyone,

Alchymist

The term "witch" was used bye the church. As i understand was a witch a supernatural human who gain her powers from the devil. All magicians, herbskilled, clairvoyants, astrologer, healers and more was burned as "witches". Would you say they are all witches?

Reginald Scott was a writer AGAINST witchcraft. He believe it did not existed.
So why do mention him?

I don't say that the term "witch" belong to Gardner but the term "modern witch". The modern witches have nothing to do with the old traditional "witches". Gardner was the first one in history to use the term "witch" about himself in positive meaning. Therefor i believe that "witchcraft" is something you only can learn in a coven. Witchcraft is the secret practice in Wicca but there are maybe witches who have left their coven and Wicca and find a other way. Therefor i don't see witch and wiccan as the same.

Originally Posted by Occultist

yes we have a high priestess who said we didnt?

It is Gardnerian or Alexandrian?

my form of Craft is seen as Pictish if it were to be given a lable. if thats what your asking?

Chrode, you are simply repeating the same stuff over and over again and not listening to anyone else.

We still don't know the source of your supposed "authority". Who, or what, gives you the right to tell the rest of us why we can or can't be witches?

If you continue to refuse to answer, we'll simply draw the obvious conclusion; you have none.

Alchymist

Originally Posted by Alchymist

Chrode, you are simply repeating the same stuff over and over again and not listening to anyone else.

We still don't know the source of your supposed "authority". Who, or what, gives you the right to tell the rest of us why we can or can't be witches?

If you continue to refuse to answer, we'll simply draw the obvious conclusion; you have none.

Alchymist

Why do you not repeat my question?

I remember that Gerald Gardner saying in hes book witchcraft today that only a witch can create an other witch.

Since i don't see any evidens about selfappointed witches before Gardner i believe that Gardner have the one rigth to use the term "modern witch" and as i said... The modern witches have nothing to do with the traditional witches from the burnin time.

Originally Posted by Alchymist

Chrode, you are simply repeating the same stuff over and over again and not listening to anyone else.

We still don't know the source of your supposed "authority". Who, or what, gives you the right to tell the rest of us why we can or can't be witches?

If you continue to refuse to answer, we'll simply draw the obvious conclusion; you have none.

Alchymist

Why do you not repeat my question?

I remember that Gerald Gardner saying in hes book witchcraft today that only a witch can create an other witch.

Since i don't see any evidens about selfappointed witches before Gardner i believe that Gardner have the one rigth to use the term "modern witch" and as i said... The modern witches have nothing to do with the traditional witches from the burnin time.

[norseman]

Chrode, listen to me. Nobody is getting at you ! We are trying to persuade you to be more open in your thinking about this whole subject.
Analyse Wicca. It has a core of Old Craft - so nothing new there. That is the witchcraft element of it, as old as the hills !
Surrounding this core are the faith elements which came from Golden Dawn, Rosicrucianism, Qabala, The Templars, Druids, and various High Rituals from the Celtic Church. Throw in some teachings from Crowley and there you are. Nothing new in the whole bundle !

Old Craft + Old Rituals and old religious aspects of Nature worship = Nothing new, just a repackaging.
Meanwhile, the Old Ways go from strength to strength, being thoroughly entrenched in wicca. This is a feature of the Cunning Folk - they have always "hidden in plain sight". In medieval times, some even hid in the Catholic Church as priests and used the bible as a source of spells. They were protected from the Witch Hunts by the population who refused to denounce them because of their useful skills in the countryside. Many old churches in England have carvings of pagan gods in their structures - now you know why.

I will be honest. In my opinion, Gardner did us all a disservice by attempting to popularise The Craft and, of course ridiculous films and TV programmes did not help matters.

Oh, before I finish. Scott "claimed" to be anti-witchcraft but was anything but. He very carefully set out spellcasting - bit too keen on demonic spellcasting to my taste. Also be careful of the Burning Times - it did not really happen. All based on very distorted data from a bishop of a small German City [Triers, I think]. The Burnings, a la Inquisition, was mainly heretics , including priests. No burnings in England, some hangings. Salem was just mass hysteria.

So, Chrode, read wider. Read reputable authors, avoiding those with silly made-up names who make claims to be the Grand Witch of This and That.

Originally Posted by norseman

Chrode, listen to me. Nobody is getting at you ! We are trying to persuade you to be more open in your thinking about this whole subject.
Analyse Wicca. It has a core of Old Craft - so nothing new there. That is the witchcraft element of it, as old as the hills !
Surrounding this core are the faith elements which came from Golden Dawn, Rosicrucianism, Qabala, The Templars, Druids, and various High Rituals from the Celtic Church. Throw in some teachings from Crowley and there you are. Nothing new in the whole bundle !

Old Craft + Old Rituals and old religious aspects of Nature worship = Nothing new, just a repackaging.
Meanwhile, the Old Ways go from strength to strength, being thoroughly entrenched in wicca. This is a feature of the Cunning Folk - they have always "hidden in plain sight". In medieval times, some even hid in the Catholic Church as priests and used the bible as a source of spells. They were protected from the Witch Hunts by the population who refused to denounce them because of their useful skills in the countryside. Many old churches in England have carvings of pagan gods in their structures - now you know why.

I will be honest. In my opinion, Gardner did us all a disservice by attempting to popularise The Craft and, of course ridiculous films and TV programmes did not help matters.

Oh, before I finish. Scott "claimed" to be anti-witchcraft but was anything but. He very carefully set out spellcasting - bit too keen on demonic spellcasting to my taste. Also be careful of the Burning Times - it did not really happen. All based on very distorted data from a bishop of a small German City [Triers, I think]. The Burnings, a la Inquisition, was mainly heretics , including priests. No burnings in England, some hangings. Salem was just mass hysteria.

So, Chrode, read wider. Read reputable authors, avoiding those with silly made-up names who make claims to be the Grand Witch of This and That.

Norseman, I was drown as a witch in France in the 1600s (not sure exact year) I remember it.

Originally Posted by norseman

Chrode, listen to me. Nobody is getting at you ! We are trying to persuade you to be more open in your thinking about this whole subject.
Analyse Wicca. It has a core of Old Craft - so nothing new there. That is the witchcraft element of it, as old as the hills !
Surrounding this core are the faith elements which came from Golden Dawn, Rosicrucianism, Qabala, The Templars, Druids, and various High Rituals from the Celtic Church. Throw in some teachings from Crowley and there you are. Nothing new in the whole bundle !

Old Craft + Old Rituals and old religious aspects of Nature worship = Nothing new, just a repackaging.
Meanwhile, the Old Ways go from strength to strength, being thoroughly entrenched in wicca. This is a feature of the Cunning Folk - they have always "hidden in plain sight". In medieval times, some even hid in the Catholic Church as priests and used the bible as a source of spells. They were protected from the Witch Hunts by the population who refused to denounce them because of their useful skills in the countryside. Many old churches in England have carvings of pagan gods in their structures - now you know why.

I will be honest. In my opinion, Gardner did us all a disservice by attempting to popularise The Craft and, of course ridiculous films and TV programmes did not help matters.

Oh, before I finish. Scott "claimed" to be anti-witchcraft but was anything but. He very carefully set out spellcasting - bit too keen on demonic spellcasting to my taste. Also be careful of the Burning Times - it did not really happen. All based on very distorted data from a bishop of a small German City [Triers, I think]. The Burnings, a la Inquisition, was mainly heretics , including priests. No burnings in England, some hangings. Salem was just mass hysteria.

So, Chrode, read wider. Read reputable authors, avoiding those with silly made-up names who make claims to be the Grand Witch of This and That.

What is your point?

[norseman]

Obviously, absolutely nothing !