Witches and witchcraft

[Phaedrus]

There never were any real witches, just fallible men fearful of that which is different.

 

[Bear Wild]

While there are non-Initiatory practices that identify as Wiccan, they are not the same thing as traditional Wicca. These practices are actually eclectic paganism & witchcraft that borrow, to varying amounts, publicly known aspects of Wicca and its name but most certainly do not maintain the same thing. In fact, much of the time they barely resemble one another, varying in everything from what's borrowed from traditional Wicca and to what extent to what else they take additional influences from. These practices are not an evolution of the religion but developed externally of it, propelled by publishers who realized diy books to be a lucrative cottage industry.

That isn't a value statement regarding these myriad practices, simply they do not contain nor convey the same religion. It's no different to saying Druidry or Kemetism or some other practice aren't Wicca either. It's just an acknowledgement of them being different regardless of what parallels or similarities that might be observed.

I do not believe you can you can say that considering how new this religions is. That is not to say that there are wiccans that believe their for of Wicca is superior because they go through a initiatory practice or have a priesthood. Much of this belief comes from the original practice by Gardner in the 1950's but his practice was made up or borrowed from others.

Druidry is different from Wicca in its beliefs and organization. and would not be considered Wicca. I would say there is no one who can define what is Wicca except to their on personal beliefs. There are common characteristics but it is not an organized religion and does not have any agreed text as you see in Abrahamic religions.

 

[Callisto]

There may be those who consider themselves as Wicca that accepts an initiatory priesthood and tutelary deities but not all those who are Wicca do. Considering the origin of this religion is coming from the 1950s and how much diversity has developed since that time the beliefs, rites and rituals are all modern and diverse. There is no central organization to dictate the believes of Wicca or to determine how to practice. You do not need a priesthood to be wiccan. Most people share many similar values and beliefs but nothing is so organized to require an initiatory event or any organized belief or ritual.

The religion predates the 1950s, Gardner himself was initiated in the 1930s and formed the first coven to be referred to as Wicca in the 1940s. What occurred in the 1950s was the ability to go public. Gardner's first book on the craft was published as fiction because Britain's anti-witchcraft law was still in effect. The law was repealed in 1951, which made it feasible to publish his later non-fiction books and to be public about practicing witchcraft.

The changes you're referring to have not been within Wicca but precisely what I noted above, the influence Wicca has had among eclectic pagan and witchcraft practices. They all borrow from it and often (but not always) call their practices "wicca" too even though they vary as to what all they've borrowed from it and despite often drawing on other religions as well.

Wicca isn't about belief, which means professing a belief is not something mandated in traditional Wicca. Wicca is orthopraxic which requires maintaining specific practices that are missing from non-traditional practices. A path that is initiatory and experiential while perpetuating a body of knowledge isn't going to change its stripes. Nor can it be gutted and then its aspects picked over and re-envisioned in a multitude of permutations and somehow still be the same thing. Once that happens, something other has been formed.

Again, that's NOT claiming one thing is either superior or inferior to the other. Simply those practices are not the same thing and calling them "wicca" doesn't change the fact they are not an evolution of the religion, the religion itself is still an initiatory priesthood.

Edited to add - Wicca is an organized religion, it's simply not centralized. Its traditions have structure, lineage, and ways that are kept intact from coven to coven, line to line, it's feasible for initiates to be vouched/vetted.

 

[Bear Wild]

The religion predates the 1950s, Gardner himself was initiated in the 1930s and formed the first coven to be referred to as Wicca in the 1940s. What occurred in the 1950s was the ability to go public. Gardner's first book on the craft was published as fiction because Britain's anti-witchcraft law was still in effect. The law was repealed in 1951, which made it feasible to publish his later non-fiction books and to be public about practicing witchcraft.

The changes you're referring to have not been within Wicca but precisely what I noted above, the influence Wicca has had among eclectic pagan and witchcraft practices. They all borrow from it and often (but not always) call their practices "wicca" too even though they vary as to what all they've borrowed from it and despite often drawing on other religions as well.

Wicca isn't about belief, which means professing a belief is not something mandated in traditional Wicca. Wicca is orthopraxic which requires maintaining specific practices that are missing from non-traditional practices. A path that is initiatory and experiential while perpetuating a body of knowledge isn't going to change its stripes. Nor can it be gutted and then its aspects picked over and re-envisioned in a multitude of permutations and somehow still be the same thing. Once that happens, something other has been formed.

Again, that's NOT claiming one thing is either superior or inferior to the other. Simply those practices are not the same thing and calling them "wicca" doesn't change the fact they are not an evolution of the religion, the religion itself is still an initiatory priesthood.

Edited to add - Wicca is an organized religion, it's simply not centralized. Its traditions have structure, lineage, and ways that are kept intact from coven to coven, line to line, it's feasible for initiates to be vouched/vetted.

That is still Gardner's coven which he made up. So when did wicca become so organized? What specific practices are you talking about?

 

[Callisto]

That is still Gardner's coven which he made up. So when did wicca become so organized? What specific practices are you talking about?

Covens aren't made up, they're founded. And his was a continuance of the craft he was previously initiated into. Wicca has always been organized, that's an inherent aspect of its lineaged structure.

The specific practices are those that are core to the religion and kept oathbound, in part, to keep them sacrosanct and are still perpetuated intact nearly 80 years on since Gardner's coven.

Its the aspects lacking from books marketed to Eclectics and why, at best, those books repeat the same "101" information. Sit in on virtually any Wiccan forum and this is a recurring frustration and complaint. In short, Wicca can't be expressed in books and its scope cannot be learned nor experienced in a solitary way. Thus, the same basic outward characteristics are written about and even then often incorrectly so or dumbed down.

If it didn't require initiation, it would not be initiatory. Gardner began training others at a time when witchcraft was illegal and even after the law repealed, still potentially socially ruinous for anyone found out. People had to risk finding and interacting with others in person, there was no annonymous luxury of sitting at home on the internet looking up blogs and ordering witchy stuff from etsy. Considering that plus the fact he wanted to ultimately make its existence publicly known, if initiation was not essential, it would have been a lot safer in that era to practice alone, his books would have been DIY, the practice expressed in full for people to order his books secretly. And certainly by now, if initiation wasn't necessary, the traditions would have waned and been replaced. Instead, the trads continue to grow and now exist on multiple continents.

 

[Bear Wild]

Covens aren't made up, they're founded. And his was a continuance of the craft he was previously initiated into. Wicca has always been organized, that's an inherent aspect of its lineaged structure.

The specific practices are those that are core to the religion and kept oathbound, in part, to keep them sacrosanct and are still perpetuated intact nearly 80 years on since Gardner's coven.

Its the aspects lacking from books marketed to Eclectics and why, at best, those books repeat the same "101" information. Sit in on virtually any Wiccan forum and this is a recurring frustration and complaint. In short, Wicca can't be expressed in books and its scope cannot be learned nor experienced in a solitary way. Thus, the same basic outward characteristics are written about and even then often incorrectly so or dumbed down.

If it didn't require initiation, it would not be initiatory. Gardner began training others at a time when witchcraft was illegal and even after the law repealed, still potentially socially ruinous for anyone found out. People had to risk finding and interacting with others in person, there was no annonymous luxury of sitting at home on the internet looking up blogs and ordering witchy stuff from etsy. Considering that plus the fact he wanted to ultimately make its existence publicly known, if initiation was not essential, it would have been a lot safer in that era to practice alone, his books would have been DIY, the practice expressed in full for people to order his books secretly. And certainly by now, if initiation wasn't necessary, the traditions would have waned and been replaced. Instead, the trads continue to grow and now exist on multiple continents.

Gardner created his coven based on sources such as the golden dawn but there is no evidence that there was any organized groups of witches before him. Followers of the pagan religions appear to have died out by 900 to 1000 AD. Even though many of the ritual activities persisted and the important dates were still celebrated although converted to Christian holidays, There is no evidence that any group or individuals considered themselves as pagans after that time. The people who were called witches would still have considered themselves as Christians from what we know. Thus the coven Gardner created was what he believed a coven should be and he created the initiations himself. If you have evidence that contradicts this I would like to know about it.

The American council of Witches proposed the following guidelines. Does your experience contradict what was proposed?

1. We practice Rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces marked by the Phases of the Moon and the Seasonal Quarters and Cross Quarters.
2. We recognize that our intelligence gives us a unique responsibility toward our environment. We seek to live in harmony with Nature, in ecological balance offering fulfillment to life and consciousness within an evolutionary concept.
3. We acknowledge a depth of power far greater than that apparent to the average person. Because it is far greater than ordinary, it is sometimes called “supernatural,” but we see it as lying within that which is naturally potential to all.
4. We conceive of the Creative Power in the Universe as manifesting through polarity—as masculine and feminine—and that this same Creative Power lives in all people, and functions through the interaction of the masculine and feminine. We value neither above the other, knowing each to be supporting of the other. We value Sex as pleasure, as the symbol and embodiment of life, and as one of the sources of energies used in magical practice and religious worship.
5. We recognize both other worlds and inner, or psychological, worlds—sometimes known as the Spiritual World, the Collective Unconscious, the Inner Planes, etc.—and we see in the interaction of these two dimensions the basis for paranormal phenomena and magical exercises. We neglect neither dimension for the other, seeing both as necessary for our fulfillment.
6. We do not recognize any authoritarian hierarchy, but do honor those who teach, respect those who share their greater knowledge and wisdom, and acknowledge those who have courageously given of themselves in leadership.
7. We see religion, magick, and wisdom-in-living as being united in the way one views the world and lives within it—a worldview and philosophy-of-life which we identify as Witchcraft, the Wiccan Way. 8. Calling oneself “Witch” does not make a witch—but neither does heredity itself, or the collecting of titles, degrees and initiations. A Witch seeks to control the forces within him/herself that make life possible in order to live wisely and well, without harm to others, and in harmony with Nature.
9. We acknowledge that it is the affirmation and fulfillment of life, in a continuation of evolution and development of consciousness, that gives meaning to the Universe we know, and to our personal role within it.
10. Our only animosity toward Christianity, or toward any other religion or philosophy-of-life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be “the only way” and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief.
11. As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the Craft, the origins of various aspects of different traditions. We are concerned with our present, and our future.
12. We do not accept the concept of “absolute evil,” nor do we worship any entity known as “Satan” or “The Devil” as defined by the Christian tradition. We do not seek power through the suffering of others, nor do we accept the concept that personal benefit can only be derived by denial to another. 13. We acknowledge that we seek within Nature for that which is contributory to our health and well-being.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Couldn't disagree with you more. You do not need to be initiated. There are so many individuals practicing without initiation. Everything you need to understand and practice Wicca is available without any initiation. You can be a solitary witch or wicca without priests or coven or whatever a group makes up. Everything about wicca is new even if it is based of off what we know of the past. Thus the gods and goddesses can be symbolic or real to someone who practices Wicca or you do not have to believe in any god or goddess. It is up to the individual to their practice. So you cannot compare being initiated in Wicca and baptism in Catholicism at all. They are so very different.

I'm not saying that the initiatory rites the same. I'm saying that both are initiatory religions that require specific rituals to be performed to be recognized by followers of either religion.

Wicca is a religion with prescribed tenets, dogma, and rituals, just as is with Catholicism. You can't order things you like off the menu and leave others you don't.

What you are describing above is known by many initiates as McWicca.

 

[Callisto]

Gardner created his coven based on sources such as the golden dawn but there is no evidence that there was any organized groups of witches before him.

Incorrect and a common distortion. Firstly, some of the ritual components are, indeed, influenced by earlier Western esoteric practices. However, that is not the same as being based on those sources or being some variant of those sources. Gardner stated he fleshed out the rituals of the craft he was initiated into so that it could be better conveyed. Borrowing techniques and repurposing them does not negate the pre-existing content nor change it. It's akin to restoring an antique. The restorer uses materials that can replace what's missing. If the original was made of a substance no longer available, he uses a modern equivalent that can approximate and serve the same purpose. Restoring an ancient statue that's damaged in modern times with modern compounds doesn't make it a different statue nor new nor change what it represents. If someone buys an old radio and finds it still works but the exterior is damaged, he repairs the outside with new buttons but it's still the same vintage radio guts inside. The techniques Gardner borrowed are new buttons, the internal part is the craft he was initiated into.

Secondly, aside from evidence that exists privately within the traditions, public information shows the existence of the people involved. Let's not overlook the fact the 1800s to early 1900s was a time when various esoteric and occult practices arose, which included pursuit of folk magic and witchcraft. In regards to Gardner's initiation into a coven, Doreen Valiente published research in the 1980s regarding Dorothy Clutterbuck, whom various authors and so-called scholars declared did not exist without any support of such dismissal. Valiente tracked down public vital records and located the residence in which Gardner stated his initiation took place (and had been owned by Clutterbuck). History professor Ronald Hutton who wrote Triumph of the Moon does not discount the plausibility of the coven's existence and acknowledged Valiente's work. Historian and researcher Philip Heselton who's written books on Gardner has identified members of the initiatory coven including Edith Woodford Grimes (Dafo) (Hutton also acknowledged her existence).

Thirdly, none of this changes the fact that Wicca is an initiatory craft and remains so.

Followers of the pagan religions appear to have died out by 900 to 1000 AD.

Which is irrelevant. Gardner stated quite plainly in his books that his initiators did not know how far back their practices went. He looked to the prevailing theory at the time which was the witch cult hypothesis. This theory, btw, was not disproven until a decade after his death. Regardless, the age of the practice does not change its nature, purpose, or validity. Had Gardner not pondered at all on how old it was that would not have changed anything.

Again, all this has no bearing on whether Wicca is an initiatory craft.

The American council of Witches proposed the following guidelines. Does your experience contradict what was proposed?

The ACOW was not a Wiccan organization, it had no bearing on nor were they spokespersons for the Wiccan religion. They convened to address what amounts to the council members' beliefs and for the acceptance of Neopaganism overall. Widely considered irrelevant, among Wiccan and pagan traditions alike. It never had any authority to speak on anyone's behalf other than their own. Another attempt was made in 2011 and was met with widespread criticisms and plans were abandoned quickly.

What does any of this have to do with Wicca being an initiatory craft?

 

[Etritonakin]

What does the bible and it's followers have against Witches and Witchcraft,I'm looking for real and real convincing reasons?

They are not to be "against" any people, but are to avoid ways of people which are not God-centered. I'm not sure how you would define witchcraft, but the general idea is that it leads to influence by spiritual powers not aligned with God (disobedient angels/demons). God allowed the interaction of such and humans to eventually cause all to be willingly aligned with God after experience (should they choose disobedience -such as Adam and Eve being allowed interaction with Satan).

I have never been into witchcraft (which actually has many definitions), but have (not by choice) experience with those who were into sorcery, witchcraft, the occult, etc. Many will say -or be told -that such things do not have to do with spirits, etc. -but you do not have to know that you are being influenced to be influenced -and many groups have an attractive outer appearance -and change as one becomes more involved.

The concern is that it is best to avoid experiencing things which are not God-centered -as many spirits and people are quite deceptive and do not actually have your best interest at heart (though some might be sincere yet misguided).

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind"

Rather than be against people, they ought to be for them -wanting them to have eternal life and avoid as much misfortune as possible. God -and the law of love -are absolutely necessary -and only God can grant eternal life. The present state of things cannot be allowed into eternity -which is why were are limited to this short life on this one planet for now -until we learn it is necessary. God is love -but he allows us to experience otherwise if we choose -so that we eventually choose to accept his necessary and beneficial government willingly.

 

[OtherSheep]

What does the bible and it's followers have against Witches and Witchcraft,I'm looking for real and real convincing reasons?

Revelation 2:20 "... thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce My servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."

Revelation 9:20 "And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: 9:21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts."

Eating things sacrificed to idols means believing religion which doesn't come from God. False religion brought into the Church will get nominal believers cast into the great tribulation, tormented by plagues, and killed by the Death that rides the black horse... not just dead, but sent to Hades.

Nimrod/Enki was The Sorcerer in Babylon.

 

[Bear Wild]

Incorrect and a common distortion. Firstly, some of the ritual components are, indeed, influenced by earlier Western esoteric practices. However, that is not the same as being based on those sources or being some variant of those sources. Gardner stated he fleshed out the rituals of the craft he was initiated into so that it could be better conveyed. Borrowing techniques and repurposing them does not negate the pre-existing content nor change it. It's akin to restoring an antique. The restorer uses materials that can replace what's missing. If the original was made of a substance no longer available, he uses a modern equivalent that can approximate and serve the same purpose. Restoring an ancient statue that's damaged in modern times with modern compounds doesn't make it a different statue nor new nor change what it represents. If someone buys an old radio and finds it still works but the exterior is damaged, he repairs the outside with new buttons but it's still the same vintage radio guts inside. The techniques Gardner borrowed are new buttons, the internal part is the craft he was initiated into.

Secondly, aside from evidence that exists privately within the traditions, public information shows the existence of the people involved. Let's not overlook the fact the 1800s to early 1900s was a time when various esoteric and occult practices arose, which included pursuit of folk magic and witchcraft. In regards to Gardner's initiation into a coven, Doreen Valiente published research in the 1980s regarding Dorothy Clutterbuck, whom various authors and so-called scholars declared did not exist without any support of such dismissal. Valiente tracked down public vital records and located the residence in which Gardner stated his initiation took place (and had been owned by Clutterbuck). History professor Ronald Hutton who wrote Triumph of the Moon does not discount the plausibility of the coven's existence and acknowledged Valiente's work. Historian and researcher Philip Heselton who's written books on Gardner has identified members of the initiatory coven including Edith Woodford Grimes (Dafo) (Hutton also acknowledged her existence).

Thirdly, none of this changes the fact that Wicca is an initiatory craft and remains so.



Which is irrelevant. Gardner stated quite plainly in his books that his initiators did not know how far back their practices went. He looked to the prevailing theory at the time which was the witch cult hypothesis. This theory, btw, was not disproven until a decade after his death. Regardless, the age of the practice does not change its nature, purpose, or validity. Had Gardner not pondered at all on how old it was that would not have changed anything.

Again, all this has no bearing on whether Wicca is an initiatory craft.



The ACOW was not a Wiccan organization, it had no bearing on nor were they spokespersons for the Wiccan religion. They convened to address what amounts to the council members' beliefs and for the acceptance of Neopaganism overall. Widely considered irrelevant, among Wiccan and pagan traditions alike. It never had any authority to speak on anyone's behalf other than their own. Another attempt was made in 2011 and was met with widespread criticisms and plans were abandoned quickly.

What does any of this have to do with Wicca being an initiatory craft?

My problem with relying on initiation as so important is in the origins of the first identifiable initiation. The details of the new forest coven are sketchy at best. I suppose Philip Heselton has the most detailed account of the new forest coven The members seemed to have been influenced by the Rosicrucian Order Crotona Fellowship, the hermitic order of the golden dawn and the work of Margaret Murray. I wonder how much the masonic initiation influenced it. Their initiation would have been made up since there was no true link to a true pre-existing witch cult. I just disagree that you have to restrict the concept of wicca to a initiatory rite made up at one time even if it is "restored".

 

[Callisto]

My problem with relying on initiation as so important is in the origins of the first identifiable initiation. The details of the new forest coven are sketchy at best. I suppose Philip Heselton has the most detailed account of the new forest coven The members seemed to have been influenced by the Rosicrucian Order Crotona Fellowship, the hermitic order of the golden dawn and the work of Margaret Murray. I wonder how much the masonic initiation influenced it. Their initiation would have been made up since there was no true link to a true pre-existing witch cult. I just disagree that you have to restrict the concept of wicca to a initiatory rite made up at one time even if it is "restored".

Your understanding of what's been proven or disproved is distorted. The only thing that has been disproved was the theory of there having been a monolithic witch cult that somehow managed to survive from ancient times to the modern era. A theory, btw, that arose in the early 1800s, a hundred years before Margaret Murray and Gardner came along. Disproving that a singular cult survived thousands of years does not negate the current practice itself. Gardner publicly trying to discern the age of the practices has no bearing on what is done. Historical records and academic research attests to centuries of folk magic and local/tutelary spirits and deities, then a period distorted through the lens of the Church to justify witchcraft persecutions. I.e., there was no singular cult that survived, folk magic and witchcraft beliefs are culturally based and vary from one region to the next. There were a multitude of local folk practices throughout Britain, as is the case among other cultures. Studies in folk lore & customs, literature, archaeology, etc. time and again provide evidence of indigenous practices and beliefs; of local "wise people", individuals who were sought for divination, healings, and curses, crafting runes & objects to protect against baneful magic & witchcraft ; remnants of shrines and evidence that people believed in & actively sought interaction with local spirits and gods. Couple that with the advent of Western esoteric practices, you have a resurgence of efforts into folk and occult practices that predate any group that coalesced during that time (19th-20th centuries).

Most people, then and now, tend to have multiple affiliations, so some belonging to the Corona Fellowship is irrelevant beyond it was a means of networking and discovering others who shared interests. This is no different than today. People meet others through one channel then go off to work together on something else is not unusual. It would take a full background check on each to confirm or deny if & how each had any connection to obscure local practices.

Masonry and Wicca are not remotely the same thing. What influence can be argued is minimal and superficial, levels of initiation is not a unique practice to either and signifies different things within different practices.

You seem intent on some notion that religions form in a vacuum, void of any cultural and social influences that predate them. They don't. Each religion shows influence and shared traits with others. It's also an unsound assumption that any sign of influence is somehow invalidating, especially if you're of the opinion that solitary Wicca is valid - each form of it is created by deliberately borrowing from Wicca and adding them to bits taken from a myriad of other sources. By your logic, they're all invalid.

The origins of most mystery cults are unknown. By your line of reasoning, all initiations are made up, given they all have a point of origin. Every priesthood is invalid per your stance. When and how the first initiation takes place is irrelevant. Either it achieves what was intended or it doesnt. Clearly, Gardner encountered something that worked considering it's been some 80 years now and not only have the traditions continued but it's impacted Neopaganism so much that even other practices borrow from it and, in plenty of instances, insist on identifying with it. It's irrelevant how long it had been around before Gardner came along.

Of course you're free to disagree and believe what you want. It doesn't change the nature or validity of the religion either way. Like so many others, you're basing your assertions on external observations of surface elements that don't actually address what it is or why it's initiatory.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What does the bible and it's followers have against Witches and Witchcraft,I'm looking for real and real convincing reasons?

Don't you think the fact that it is fraudulant, that it dupes people into believing in magick which doesn't work and waste their time and resources, is enough to have people avoid it?

 

[Bear Wild]

Your understanding of what's been proven or disproved is distorted. The only thing that has been disproved was the theory of there having been a monolithic witch cult that somehow managed to survive from ancient times to the modern era. A theory, btw, that arose in the early 1800s, a hundred years before Margaret Murray and Gardner came along. Disproving that a singular cult survived thousands of years does not negate the current practice itself. Gardner publicly trying to discern the age of the practices has no bearing on what is done. Historical records and academic research attests to centuries of folk magic and local/tutelary spirits and deities, then a period distorted through the lens of the Church to justify witchcraft persecutions. I.e., there was no singular cult that survived, folk magic and witchcraft beliefs are culturally based and vary from one region to the next. There were a multitude of local folk practices throughout Britain, as is the case among other cultures. Studies in folk lore & customs, literature, archaeology, etc. time and again provide evidence of indigenous practices and beliefs; of local "wise people", individuals who were sought for divination, healings, and curses, crafting runes & objects to protect against baneful magic & witchcraft ; remnants of shrines and evidence that people believed in & actively sought interaction with local spirits and gods. Couple that with the advent of Western esoteric practices, you have a resurgence of efforts into folk and occult practices that predate any group that coalesced during that time (19th-20th centuries).

Most people, then and now, tend to have multiple affiliations, so some belonging to the Corona Fellowship is irrelevant beyond it was a means of networking and discovering others who shared interests. This is no different than today. People meet others through one channel then go off to work together on something else is not unusual. It would take a full background check on each to confirm or deny if & how each had any connection to obscure local practices.

Masonry and Wicca are not remotely the same thing. What influence can be argued is minimal and superficial, levels of initiation is not a unique practice to either and signifies different things within different practices.

You seem intent on some notion that religions form in a vacuum, void of any cultural and social influences that predate them. They don't. Each religion shows influence and shared traits with others. It's also an unsound assumption that any sign of influence is somehow invalidating, especially if you're of the opinion that solitary Wicca is valid - each form of it is created by deliberately borrowing from Wicca and adding them to bits taken from a myriad of other sources. By your logic, they're all invalid.

The origins of most mystery cults are unknown. By your line of reasoning, all initiations are made up, given they all have a point of origin. Every priesthood is invalid per your stance. When and how the first initiation takes place is irrelevant. Either it achieves what was intended or it doesnt. Clearly, Gardner encountered something that worked considering it's been some 80 years now and not only have the traditions continued but it's impacted Neopaganism so much that even other practices borrow from it and, in plenty of instances, insist on identifying with it. It's irrelevant how long it had been around before Gardner came along.

Of course you're free to disagree and believe what you want. It doesn't change the nature or validity of the religion either way. Like so many others, you're basing your assertions on external observations of surface elements that don't actually address what it is or why it's initiatory.

Thanks for your response and information. I understand that initiation is important in the way you practice and that initiation is an important aspect for many religions, but I still disagree that it is essential for the practice of others that still practice their religion under the term Wicca. Wicca is a general term adopted but not specific. I also do not believe my understanding is only on surface elements. Appreciate your position though.