Everything Under the Moon

Would you say that a solitary Pagan Witch is any different to a Wiccan?

I identify as a Pagan Witch because I feel sometimes saying I'm a Solitary Wiccan is not right because unless one is initiated you don't actually know a lot of the oath bound secrets of Wicca.

The reason why I'm asking is because a High priestess is a Coven told me that you have to be initiated to call yourself Wiccan.
I was also told that Wicca is a hard polytheistic religion and always has been and anyone who is dualistic or soft polytheistic is not a Wiccan because apparently that's made up by writers such as Scott Cunningham.
Lastly I was told if you use anyone else's spells then you are not a witch because all witches must write their own spells.
(Which I do, do most of the time)

I know I swayed a little off topic here but I'm just curious to see what your thoughts are on these things?
The added benefit of not identifying as a Wiccan (in my opinion) is that I think it gives you more freedom of how you wish to do things.

People say a lot of things. Nine times out of ten, if someone is setting hard lines around spiritual practices, they're full of hot air. And also shit.

There can be quite a big difference between a pagan practicioner and a Wiccan...or no difference at all. It depends on the individual, their path, and how they conceptualize divinity. A demonolator who finds the divine in the likes of Lucifer, Belial, and Leviathan could very well be identified as a solitary pagan, but they sure ain't Wiccan, and might be pretty offended to be so grossly mislabeled. Same goes for heathens, Dionysiac devotees, many trad witches, and innumerable others.

There is an initiatory root to the Wiccan path, and during it's early days, solitary practice wasn't much of a thing. It's been a while since that was the hard rule, and like all religions, Wicca evolved.

People say a lot of things. Nine times out if ten, if someone is setting hard lines around spiritual practices, they're full of hot air. And also shit.

BINGO!!!!!
WE HAVE A WINNER.

Just as the Catholic Church nor the Baptists Church can claim any ownership of Jesus, NO COVEN can claim ownership of any god or goddess. I will take my cues from the wild things around me, both seen and unseen. And I will CERTAINLY rely on advice, and counsel from both tome and teacher.... but no Practitioner, Priestess or Pope can dictate to me.




EDIT:::::
It seems that this here has distinction of being my number 69 post........ so raise your goblet or your glass, and cheers.

I lean toward acknowledging the study & hard work that the coven initiated Wiccans have fulfilled and I willingly concede to them the right to proclaim themselves Coven Initiated British Tradition Wiccans, or whatever title they consider suitable, adding lineage or specific regional qualifiers so that they can identify to which path(s) they belong.Toot-toot-toot. Well done! Be true to your Tradition as long as it serves..

I also concede to self-dedicated, solitary Wiccans who have worked hard and who travel through the mysteries alone without support of coven-kin, the right to be recognized as Self-Dedicated Wiccans if they choose. Let them proceed on their self-determined course without hinderance. Toot-toot-toot. Well done! Be true to your path as long as it serves.

I would support that someone who occasionally practices some form or style of folk magic can call themselves witches as well, if they choose. The die-hard, hereditary, multiple-generation magical family probably wouldn't use any title that called attention to themselves, or recognize a Wiccan of any flavor.

I will also concede to the folklore reconstruction Traditionalist the right to freely proclaim themselves whatever name they find honorable, perhaps "secular witch" unless they prefer something like cunning folk. I am greatful for their efforts of study & historical research that serve the Greater Pagan community's search for historical authenticity. They have an honest right to call themselves witches in my thinking.

I have no problem acknowledging a rich variety of experiences that is evolving as more is uncovered. I live in the 21st Century, not the past, but I am guided by the teachings from the past. It seems to me original Gardnerian "wicca" was reconstructed & duo theistic, having begun with Aradia (spiritual daughter of Roman Diana) as the source uncovered by folklorist Charles Leland and adopting the Celtic title "horned one" or Cernunos for the horned God as identified by anthropologist Margaret Murray, thus blending two different regional cultures from the get-go, with a western occultist ceremonial structure. I'm undecided if that is soft cultural appropriation. I think the adoption of multi cultural pagan pantheons came after Gardner's death (?), possibly stemming from a continuing search for historical authenticity.

I would say that only the Gods know how many gods there truely are, & only the individual can determine for themselves which one-two-three ad infinitum they are able to comprehend, recognize and commune with meaningfully. I don't feel "the more the merrier" is an asset to a person's credibility. It really doesn't matter to me what somebody calls a loosely structured system that is likened to herding cats. If I wanted a defined and dictated belief modality, I would have stayed in a Christian system just to drive them nuts.

Edit - I thought about my comments over night. Not sure I answered the specific question of whether I think pagan Wiccan & witch are different. In broad terms I view pagan as an general umbrella philosophy that I can't define in specifics without a dictionary, and witch as one who does witchcraft & denotes a skill set & not a religion, and Wicca as a reconstructed 20th Century religious system derived from and inspired by surviving historical records.

Everyone follows their own path, in their own time and with their own understanding. We all "see" things through the filter of our own experience. I just say, "I know the ARTS when I see them".
Spirit, for someone who's not defineing things I think you put Mr. Webster to shame.

@PlaneWalker - I was just attempting to be specific Too much info, y'think?

I don't write my spells. They're in my head. I don't follow a particular path, but I practice magick. I have heard of covens that insist one cannot be considered a witch, unless formally initiated by a coven. I don't believe a patent exists on that. I'm a solitary whose pantheon changes as my life unfolds. I think Wicca would actually be too restrictive for me.

Snow

I was also told that Wicca is a hard polytheistic religion and always has been and anyone who is dualistic or soft polytheistic is not a Wiccan because apparently that's made up by writers such as Scott Cunningham.

Huh, and this person was actually an initiated Wiccan? Because right in Gardner's Book of Shadows we're given the line "Listen to the words of the Great mother, who of old was also called among men Artemis, Astarte, Dione, Melusine, Aphrodite, Cerridwen, Diana, Arianrhod, Bride, and by many other names." That sounds an awful lot like soft polytheism to me. I wonder how they view that particular bit. Also, if they were implying soft polytheism was made up by new authors, soft polytheism has been around for thousands of years. (But perhaps I am reading that wrong.)

Regardless, yes, there is a difference between pagan, Wiccan, and witch. The exact lines between the three can be blurry, but they really aren't completely interchangeable terms. I don't believe Wicca is just whatever you want it to be, as some modern authors do imply, but I don't think that necessarily means it's Gardnerian Wicca or nothing. Wicca has some core practices and ideas, such as the specific ritual structure, and the tools used. As was mentioned, it draws heavily from what was at the time "historical" sources, such as Murray or Graves (although we now know this history to be inaccurate, it has it's spiritual benefits), as well as the ceremonial magic that was popular in Gardner's time. Even if you don't take a narrow, initiatory only view, Wicca is still it's own particular path. Whether that's the path you are on or not comes down to your own personal judgement, because asking anybody else will get both a lot of 'yes' and 'no' answers.

The things that set Wicca apart, even on the broader view, are not universal to all forms of paganism and witchcraft. There are many other pagan paths out there that are not Wicca, and likewise, there are many forms of witchcraft that are not Wicca. You can be a pagan and not a Wiccan or a witch. You can be a witch and not a pagan or a Wiccan. As an example, as a Hellenic I fit under the pagan umbrella, as a hedgewitch I am a witch, but I am not a Wiccan. So if you're not quite sure about the whole Wicca thing, identifying as a pagan/witch instead is not an issue. It's not a bad thing, like you didn't make it, or whatever, it just is what it is.

And as far as witchcraft, it's a huge, huge thing, so trying to make sweeping statements like all witches always write their own spells? Nope. A witch should understand the why and how of what they do for their own safety and benefit, but some of that stuff gets handed down, passed around, woven into tradition. Witchcraft is not a single monolith, it's many, many things shoved under one label, so imposing any sort of "a real witch must..." onto it is a waste of time and incredibly misleading to anyone learning.

I'd classify myself as eclectic solitary wiccan I use Wicca as a base but mix bits of other beliefs which make sense to me in. I tried just being wiccan but I found it too hard (plus as much as id love to be able to abide by the rede I'm a fighter by nature and so I prefer to be karma instead of waiting for karma).