Can one be a priest / priestess without a following?

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Can one be a priest / priestess without a following?


I wonder how one can be a priest / priestess in the Eclectic Pagan community? In a community where individual creation and belief is of greater concern than having a uniform religious structure, how can one claim to lead? How can one say in one breathe they do not hold to dogma and structure boundaries then claim priesthood or priestess-hood in the next breathe?

It often seems to me that many people want to be a priest / priestess! Not only do they make claim to it as if it were their calling in life, but seem offended if they are not recognized as such. It is often spouted off as simply a place or title one can assume and requires little to no requirement. Frequently it seems within the Pagan community as if one can be eclectic and be a priest / priestess or at least desire to be known as such.

Since time began man has created temples and holy sites to their divine beings. Yet the priest / priestess who manned those temples and holy sites had a common devotion to a specific deity. The temple or holy site devoted to a given specific deity and a social order that believed and followed that given deity. Yes, in some places there maybe alters to other deities within the temple but they were frequently gods / goddess that had a connection to the primary deity. For example a temple to Leto may also recognize Artemis and Apollo and hold worship for them.

Granted some social orders held no temples, such as a shamantic system like that of the Native Americans. Yet they did hold holy items (Keeper of the Sacred Bundle for the Sioux for example) and were recognized and supported by a social belief in the divine and their place within that system. The Holy Man or Medicine Man, being the hollow bone through which Spirit speaks and the guiding source for the spiritual facet of the community.

I believe that one may rise to the point where they seek recluse and elevation of self in their relationship with their God / Goddess. Yet that again does not make them a priest / priestess though one might say they are a hollow bone for the god / goddess that may speak through them.

Yet, truthfully how can one be a priest / priestess without a following? If one looks to any religion, to be a priest / priestess one requires a following of some sort, whether it be composed of and defined as a group of individuals or an entire race or civilization.

Not just a following but a group that holds a similar belief and method of worship. Possessing a common understanding of why they do a thing or who they look to for guidance and reasoning for why it is done. It requires a similar perception and belief in what being a priest / priestess entails and the function or functions that the position shall fulfill in their social and religious settings.

Within a Traditional Wiccan coven one could hold the position of High Priest / High Priestess when the coven has a uniform belief in and practice of honoring and worshiping a God / Goddess. Yet remove the common belief and uniform practice of honoring the God / Goddess and you no longer have the capacity to be a priest / priestess and guide. Even the ritual that is performed looses its meaning when it is not used the same way with the same meaning for all members of the group. Granted one may retain a leadership or guidance role but it could not be seen as a true priest / priestess.

In the Pagan community there are many that recognize a specific God / Goddess. I recognize the Goddess Hecate as does Theres, but the manner in which she called to us and the way we see her is far different. Could we be a priest for her? Personally I would say no for there is no one that followers her the way I do. Could we be seen as equal followers? I’d say yes, for while we may read the same stories and tales about her we would not take the same conclusions and concepts from the tales.

Yet, we both could gain a better understanding of her through our exchange of idea’s and conclusions derived from study of her stories and tales. However, I still could not be a priest for her for I have no group that I lead in worship of her nor am I called upon to devine what her message is for others. So, if we as two followers of the same goddess have different perspectives how can one become a priest / priestess when there is no following that believes the same way?

As a follower of Hecate, she may call upon me to be the Hollow Bone through which she speaks, but it does not make me her priest to others. I may be the vessel that is used to introduce her or even speak for her in the mundane, but that is a one on one scenario, not as a cleric to guide her worshippers.

No! I do not think one can be a priest / priestess without the dogma and structure and the group of followers of that god / goddess for whom you speak and devine the truth from. Sadly, I think it is but one more fragment of a religious system that is being corrupted and distorted for personal self gratification not because of a calling from deity.

[patch]

I don't think one can just declare themselves clergy.

In my opinion, the role of clergy a specific title or rank within a social structure. So sure, eclectic pagans can be preists/preistesses; but in my opinion they should be appointed as such, and not just decide that they are one.

To me being dedicated to a god or path =/= clergy.

[aranarose]

To me, a priest/ess is a leader. To be a leader, there must be something, someone, to lead; a group, a community. So to simply declare oneself a priest/ess is, to me, silly. Without a community, the title is meaningless.

However, I won't argue with someone who calls themself a priest/ess, even if I do privately think they are just trying to stroke their own ego.

[Xander67]

One can say they are a Priest/ Priestess and I will just smile and nod. How do we validate them? Do we ask to see their credentials? Or do we just let them earn our respect through their works in the community?

Maybe people like titles and such to give them a sense of value or to impress people? Maybe they actually went through a rite of ordination granting them the rights and privilages to that title.

This is why it is always smart and never dissrespectful to make inquiries of the leaders of any group you are thinking about joining. Who is the Priest? Who s the High Priestess? Who ordained them and what is their function in the community?

Anyone who would get offended at an inquiry by a potential member is not someone you want to put in a position of authority in your spiritual/magical training. There are a lot of scam artists out there and there are many wonderful leaders in our community.

[Ben Gruagach]

There are two distinct roles here that are both being called priest/ess -- being dedicated to serve a particular deity, and being dedicated to serve a community of believers.

When Gerald Gardner started promoting Wicca back in the day, the first degree initiation ritual (which was the start of one's spiritual journey as a Wiccan, and not necessarily the culmination of anything like a year-and-a-day training) explicitly stated that the new initiate was a Witch and Priest/ess. One of the big lessons of the first degree rite was that each practitioner was self-sufficient to have a relationship with the Divine. In other words, Gardner's Wicca had the seeds of religion without the middle-man of clergy being required for worship. (Of course this seems a bit contradictory with the emphasis on coven work and the necessity of having a High Priest and High Priestess to run rituals, but then Gardner was never accused of being consistent!)

Clergy, as others have pointed out, are pointless without some sort of community to serve.

I think that the best way to think of the distinction between priest/ess and clergy is that all clergy are priest/ess, but not all priest/ess are clergy. (Sorry for the grammatical weirdness -- I'm not sure how else to be clear!) Just like all Wiccans are Witches, but not all Witches are Wiccans.

Does that make sense?

The issue of whether clergy or priest/ess have appropriate credentials or training is another thing of course, and is a problem in more than just the modern Pagan community. (There are lots of questionably credentialled Christian priests and clergy out there too!)

[RainInanna]

I like the Kemetic's idea of priests - hem Netjer - meaning servants of the Gods. I don't necessarily feel priests in cultures such as Ancient Egypt must have had followers or served people. They served their Gods. But the role of Priest is dependent on the spirituality to which it applies - for example, in Wicca, in a way all are Priests, yet my claiming myself as Priestess is rather useless for purposes of communication and interaction with others, so I don't claim it. There I feel the role belongs to those who serve the community as well as the Gods.

[~Elise~]

I'm with Ben here. Clergy is not the same thing as a priest/ess. I can serve the Gods without serving the public.

I was Priestess long before I lead a group. Now I am both. And they are two seperate things.

Elise

[patch]

Gardner's Wicca had the seeds of religion without the middle-man of clergy being required for worship. (Of course this seems a bit contradictory with the emphasis on coven work and the necessity of having a High Priest and High Priestess to run rituals, but then Gardner was never accused of being consistent!)


In traditional wicca, the entire religion consists of clergy. When you are intiated into the first degree you are a preist/preistess. High preists/preistess comes later (duh xD).

[Xentor]

If there's nobody to preach to, the priest is merely talking to themselves... in our society that might be construed as a sign of mental illness...

Some more similar thoughts:
- It isn't a tradition if there are no followers
- It isn't a community if no-one joins in
- It isn't a coven if you're the only member

[aranarose]

The problem then is those who take the title of priest/ess, and assume that it automatically means that they are clergy, even though they have no training and no community to lead.

[childofbast]

I think Ben put it best.

I think anyone can be a priest or priestess to a particular deity or deities, but clergy depends on having a community.

I also think that to be considered clergy, one should have gone through some sort of rigorous training program. Someone very new to Paganism, in my opinion, has no right or know-how to be clergy.

~Melanie

[patch]

The problem then is those who take the title of priest/ess, and assume that it automatically means that they are clergy, even though they have no training and no community to lead.

And that is why I am of the opinion that one cannot just declare themselves a preist or preistess.

Dosen't mean what they are doing is wrong or anything, it's more grammatical than anything to me.

[~Elise~]

And that is why I am of the opinion that one cannot just declare themselves a preist or preistess.

Dosen't mean what they are doing is wrong or anything, it's more grammatical than anything to me.

One can be a priestess without being clergy...

[patch]

One can be a priestess without being clergy...
Care to elaborate? :)

[aranarose]

One can be a priestess without being clergy...

But more and more we're seeing people who think priest/ess=clergy. That, to me, is a problem, and one that I'm not sure how to deal with.

I can understand the idea that "everyone is priest/ess." It's a concept found within Christianity as well. But some sort of distinction needs to be made to get it through the heads of the self-serving ego-hounds that just because they are of a universal priesthood does not mean they are qualified or able to be clergy.

[~Elise~]

Care to elaborate? :)

Nope--because I can't say it better than Ben did in this thread.

[~Elise~]

But more and more we're seeing people who think priest/ess=clergy. That, to me, is a problem, and one that I'm not sure how to deal with.

I can understand the idea that "everyone is priest/ess." It's a concept found within Christianity as well. But some sort of distinction needs to be made to get it through the heads of the self-serving ego-hounds that just because they are of a universal priesthood does not mean they are qualified or able to be clergy.


Agreed, but that is their ego problem. And let's face it, most Pagans have HEALTHY egos.

There is no universal fix other than calling them on their BS.

But the original topic was can you be a priest/ess without a following...yes, you can.

Can you be clergy without a following...no, you can't. And that is earned, not assumed.

JMO however

[aranarose]

Here's a possible distinction:

Priest/ess -> One who serves the divine, in whatever form he/she worships them

Clergy -> One who serves a community of worshipers

So a Priest/ess may or may not be clergy, but clergy will always be a priest/ess.

[Theres]

i agree. a priest/ess needs no followers to serve their god/dess.

in fact in ancient Greece the only function of a priest or priestess was to serve their respective deity and keep the temple. even of no one else showed up, their role was the same.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Ok,

Lets say that one can be a priest / priestess without a following they administer too. Yet would that not place them in the category of an acolyte or similar position that has no clergy position before a following but pays homage to their diety?

Or has the concept of Priest / Priestess become diluted to the point where it has no clear identity?

I acknowledge that I maybe called a Theologian for I am not of the clergy but have spent large amounts of time in research of my spirituality and religion.

[Xander67]

Ben's post made sense.

A Priest is one who has dedicated their lives to their deity. So naturally it makes sense that in order to be a member of the clergy, one of the requirements should be that they be a priest.

The Clergy are ambassadors of their particular church,coven,group,etc.. when they are doing their work in the community they serve so you would not want to appoint one to a position of clergy if he or she has not formally dedicated their lives to the deity of that particular path.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

As Theres pointed out the priest / priestess served the god / goddess even if none showed up at the temple.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the temple clergy broken down into sub-sets that served the god / goddess and different facets within the operation of the temple? Sort of a there would be cloistered clergy that may never have seen the public, Clergy that performed the ceremonies and rites, clergy that devined the truth from an Oracles predicitons, some that just maintained the temple grounds, etc.

[~Elise~]

As Theres pointed out the priest / priestess served the god / goddess even if none showed up at the temple.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the temple clergy broken down into sub-sets that served the god / goddess and different facets within the operation of the temple? Sort of a there would be cloistered clergy that may never have seen the public, Clergy that performed the ceremonies and rites, clergy that devined the truth from an Oracles predicitons, some that just maintained the temple grounds, etc.


clergy and priestess are not interchangable terms, IMO. clergy serves to minister to a following--priest/ess serves only the Gods

[Simply Puzzled]

I think that the best way to think of the distinction between priest/ess and clergy is that all clergy are priest/ess, but not all priest/ess are clergy. (Sorry for the grammatical weirdness -- I'm not sure how else to be clear!) Just like all Wiccans are Witches, but not all Witches are Wiccans.

Does that make sense?



Not to nitpick too much, because I really like your post, but two things:

Firstly, you can be clergy without being a priest. For example, there are positions within the Christian church that minister to the people without being part of the priesthood. A deacon is clearly clergy, yet denied the ability to perform the sacraments and therefore, not a priest. This is important because...

There is also a big difference between someone who has dedicated their lives to a deity and a priest. While it is true that priests often, especially in modern times, dedicate their lives to a deity, it is not what makes one a priest. In the above example, the Deacon has dedicated their life to Christ, yet is not a priest. On the other hand, Julius Caesar used his position to take the head of all of the major Roman priesthoods, yet I doubt if he even believed in a deity let alone devoted himself to one. From the above examples, the common thread is the performance of the priestly rites, which actually make one a priest or priestess. The rites are what distinguishes devout laity from priesthood, and hence the reason most eclectics can lay no claim to the priesthood. If your rites change every time you perform them, it's hard to claim them as the rites of a deity.

[Theres]

From the above examples, the common thread is the performance of the priestly rites, which actually make one a priest or priestess.
and yet these "priestly rites" need have nothing necessarily to do with community.


Julius Caesar used his position to take the head of all of the major Roman priesthoods, yet I doubt if he even believed in a deity let alone devoted himself to one.
in fact i believe that ol' Julius was dedicated to Venus.

[Ben Gruagach]

Not to nitpick too much, because I really like your post, but two things:

Firstly, you can be clergy without being a priest. For example, there are positions within the Christian church that minister to the people without being part of the priesthood. A deacon is clearly clergy, yet denied the ability to perform the sacraments and therefore, not a priest. This is important because...

There is also a big difference between someone who has dedicated their lives to a deity and a priest. While it is true that priests often, especially in modern times, dedicate their lives to a deity, it is not what makes one a priest. In the above example, the Deacon has dedicated their life to Christ, yet is not a priest. On the other hand, Julius Caesar used his position to take the head of all of the major Roman priesthoods, yet I doubt if he even believed in a deity let alone devoted himself to one. From the above examples, the common thread is the performance of the priestly rites, which actually make one a priest or priestess. The rites are what distinguishes devout laity from priesthood, and hence the reason most eclectics can lay no claim to the priesthood. If your rites change every time you perform them, it's hard to claim them as the rites of a deity.

I simplified.

The clarifications you've given (quoted above) are good but strike me as being particular to Roman politics, and subsequently to Christian religious structures rather than to universal definitions of priesthood. In Rome, and in the Roman Catholic church (and most of its offshoots) the role of priest was pretty clearly defined. But it's not necessarily the same way priesthood is defined in other religions.

I also expect there are all sorts of different types of priest/ess if we were to look at different religions. For instance, I believe I read that in ancient Mesopotamian faiths it was common for there to be specialist priest/ess who performed certain types of divinations, others that tended temples, others that did healings, etc. -- all different roles, yet all priest/ess. And only a few of those roles might fit in the category of clergy which involves serving a community (or to think in business terms, serving a client base.)

[Cake-eating_Moth]

I will base my thoughts on etymology of the given word 'priest' and 'clergy'.


Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper"[/SIZE]]O.E. preost, shortened from the older Gmc. form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester "priest," from L.L. presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Presbyterian)). In O.T. sense, a transl. of Heb. kohen, Gk. hiereus, L. sacerdos. Priesthood is O.E. preosthad. Priestcraft originally was "the business of being a priest" (1483); after rise of Protestantism and the Enlightenment, it acquired a pejorative sense of "arts of ambitious priests for temporal power and social control" (1681).


(Ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek): πρεσβύτερος), Latinized as presbyter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyter), is traditionally translated priest and the English word priest is indeed etymologically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology) derived from this word; literally, however, this word means elder

So, though it is indirectly linked to the rising of Christianity during those ancient times, the word itself basically means "Elder". Clergy, in itself, is literally translated into meaning "Body of Clerics" or, in essence, "Body of learners" If this is the case, than we have to pinpoint what, if anything, marks the position of a person as "elder". Therefore, only those that are "elders" can have a chance at successfully running clergy; these are those that are successfuly come to be known as "High Priestess or Priest" in a caste order within the group. Those within the clergy aren't necessarily priests or priestesses, as the etymology of the word "Clerk/Clerc/Cleric" is the derivitive of Clergy, meaning "scholar/learner/organizer". Now, if a person in the clergy is passed into the rank of "elder" (however that might be defined) then they are indeed known as "Priest/Priestess".

So, in essence, lovely Gardner was wrong in his use of the word 'priest/priestess when defining initiates. I don't believe, and many would agree with me, that becoming initiated into a religion makes one an "elder" by any means.

As for the topic at hand, I do believe one can be a priest/priestess without a following. However, if considering a coven, those that perform or help perform in rituals and rites or organization of the coven financially, or within the community, would come to be known as the clergy in strict definition. Any others, observers or those indirectly involved in any rituals, yes, would then compose of your said "Following". So, even in the pagan religion, they can coexist, but only in small numbers (unless Paganism becomes widespread soon) :)

[cheddarsox]

Echoing Ben, as many others have. I think one can validly be called to serve a deity, without also serving a community. In some trads that is known as priest/ess, but in others that term is used ONLY for someone who acts as a go between for a community and it's deities.

In my culture (mostly Christian USA) priest is usually understood as one who serves the community by acting as go between, and as such is a term used in ritualistic religions, in which such a person is needed.

A minister, is one called primarily to serve a community of believers, in faiths in which each member is believed to be able to access the deity themselves, so they don't need a priest, but still may benefit from a leader.

But in other languages/cultures the term priest...or the translation that matches it may very well be different.

I think when people respond to this question, it might be useful to include which trad you are in, and if a "go between" role exists, and what term your trad uses for it, and which terms used for those who serve the community as leader rather than go between.

I am a pantheist. We do not use "go betweens", and our leaders...are usually just called that...Jane Smith, leader of the local Pan chapter...etc, or facilitator of a discussion group, etc. There is some call for "ministers" who can officiate at marriages, and would serve by leading funerals and such.

[Simply Puzzled]

and yet these "priestly rites" need have nothing necessarily to do with community.

Exactly. This is why I agreed with Ben's post and didn't feel the need to rehash the point.


in fact i believe that ol' Julius was dedicated to Venus.

Well, the short answer is no. Julius Caesar did claim descent from Venus in order to legitimize his claim to dictatorship, a fact later used by Augustus to legitimize his claim as Emperor. Venus' image and symbols were also quite popular in the artistic movements surrounding both leaders, but ultimately, I think we would find Julius' devotion to be somewhat lacking if we were to judge by today's standards. He was more interested in what he could get out of Venus than what he could give to Her.

[Cassie]

I'm with Ben here. Clergy is not the same thing as a priest/ess. I can serve the Gods without serving the public.

I was Priestess long before I lead a group. Now I am both. And they are two seperate things.

Elise
More agreement here. I call myself a Priestess in the sense that I serve my Goddess. At the moment I have no desire to lead any sort of group unless She leads me in that direction. I like to use the term Priestess for two main reasons. Firstly it underlines the importance of spirituality in my way of life; and secondly, as someone who was brought up as a catholic, it is a personal statement that I don't need a third party to intervene between myself and the divine.


But more and more we're seeing people who think priest/ess=clergy. That, to me, is a problem, and one that I'm not sure how to deal with.

I can understand the idea that "everyone is priest/ess." It's a concept found within Christianity as well. But some sort of distinction needs to be made to get it through the heads of the self-serving ego-hounds that just because they are of a universal priesthood does not mean they are qualified or able to be clergy.
I understand and agree with the point you are making. Ego hounds are a problem in all walks of life. But I don't think those of us who use the term Priest or Priestess for genuine spiritual reasons should have to alter our language just to disassociate ourselves from people who abuse the term.

[~Elise~]

I Understand And Agree With The Point You Are Making. Ego Hounds Are A Problem In All Walks Of Life. But I Don't Think Those Of Us Who Use The Term Priest Or Priestess For Genuine Spiritual Reasons Should Have To Alter Our Language Just To Disassociate Ourselves From People Who Abuse The Term.

Qft!!

[Simply Puzzled]

I will base my thoughts on etymology of the given word 'priest' and 'clergy'.

As big of a fan of etymology as I am, I think that simply saying X word derived from Y word and therefore X = Y ignores the rich heritages and connotations of a word. For example, artificial derives from the root word "art" and originally meant "artfully made," yet I doubt that many painters today would take well to having their work called "artificial." The word on it's way from it's root got smashed and combined with a whole bunch of other words that meant a wide range of things. Vestal Virgins fall well within the bounds of what most of us consider priestesses*, yet they were initiated straight off and served for years before graduating to the level where they were no longer learning, but actually performing the rites, and years more before they could teach them

*Ben, I definitely think you have a point when you say I rely heavily on Roman and Greek examples!

[David19]

I simplified.

The clarifications you've given (quoted above) are good but strike me as being particular to Roman politics, and subsequently to Christian religious structures rather than to universal definitions of priesthood. In Rome, and in the Roman Catholic church (and most of its offshoots) the role of priest was pretty clearly defined. But it's not necessarily the same way priesthood is defined in other religions.

I also expect there are all sorts of different types of priest/ess if we were to look at different religions. For instance, I believe I read that in ancient Mesopotamian faiths it was common for there to be specialist priest/ess who performed certain types of divinations, others that tended temples, others that did healings, etc. -- all different roles, yet all priest/ess. And only a few of those roles might fit in the category of clergy which involves serving a community (or to think in business terms, serving a client base.)

Good post, Ben, and, I just wanted to say, there were different levels in Temples to the Sumerian and/or Mesopotamian Gods, or individual Gods, for example, you had healers, diviners, tended to the Temple, and to the God/statue of the God, Exorcists (Exorcism was quite big in Sumer and Mesopotamia), people who performed magic, specialised in demons (although they would also be Exorcists, etc), etc.

[Teresa]

Qft!!

Amen!

[Zephyrstorm]

First :hugz: SS


In the introduction to her Portrait of a Priestess, Joan Breton Connelly makes the point that Western society has a very defined idea of what a priest is and does, and that in Ancient Greece the idea of a priest was far more diverse. For the Hellenes, priests were not conduits to the Gods - everyone could commune and made sacrifice on their own. Priests, instead, did a wide range of tasks associated with the deity and the temple.
She lists a few of the titles that have been found over the years.
hieropoioi - doers of holy things
naophylakes - temple guardians
tamiai - stewards of the sacred funds
hierarchai - presides over sacred rites
hieronostoi - searched for sacred things
hierakomoi - took charge of temples
and she continues to list them for almost two pages.

Perhaps the more appropriate question is not one of priest/clergy but one of what duties do you believe that the Gods call us to?
Without temples, by and large, we have fewer needs for some of those listed in Connelly's tome, but there are still needs both for the deities and for the community as a whole. So what are those needs?

Teachers? Counselors? Advocates?

In both Ancient Greece and Egypt, priesthood was rarely for life - you served an amount of time and then returned to the life you had before, and in fact, you could serve several different temples and deities in a lifetime.
Today we seem to have a somewhat more long-term view.

Personally, I agree with Ben. In a modern context, priesthood and clergy are not the same thing. But that doesn't mean that we can't consider other models of priesthood - or that other models won't develop over time.
Who knows, in a hundred years?

[Shosha]

Ppsst... just for the record... Pueblos had sacred temples called Kivas.

[HallsOfAvalon]

In my opinion .... A priest/priestess is not just a leader but a follower too. I believe he/she is a servant to god/goddess. I think that it starts with a declaration of diety. Once you've declared yourself to one exclusively then you can be a priest/priestess of that god/goddess.... Followers or not.

I do feel that a priest/priestess should be a student of that diety. And, I think it's a role not to be taken lightly.

[Meadhbh]

I agree with those who say you can be a priest/priestess with out having a following. A lot of people see that title as simply meaning your serving a deity. If you use that defination, then no you can serve with out having a group of people following you.

[Wolfscout1]

I understand and agree with the point you are making. Ego hounds are a problem in all walks of life. But I don't think those of us who use the term Priest or Priestess for genuine spiritual reasons should have to alter our language just to disassociate ourselves from people who abuse the term.

Another QFT.

Also I'll add to the thread.. that =>
To be recognized as legal Clergy here in the states isn't easy.
Here in SC.. declaring yourself Wiccan won't let you do squat in and of itself.
However there are ways around that. You can be recognised and ordained by the ULC (http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=main).. you can have ordainment from Temple of Wicca (http://www.rollanet.org/~mdoc/pagan/index.html) both of which are recognised federally and therefore by the state of SC. I can't speak for other states as I've not had to deal with them legally.

Try to walk into a hospital and claim clergy status and attend to those who wish to have alternative spirituality and see where one gets.

Shrugs.. unsure if that matters any but just being a coven leader doesn't always ensure you can have a legitimate wedding in some states like this one.
you should check it out to see and ensure.
sermons.. shrugs...

oh thought I'd add. yes I know Wicca is federally recognised.. but SC requires documentation of Ordination of many of these things. that is where the problem lies here.

[HallsOfAvalon]

Yeah there is a ton of paperwork that needs to be filled without such places like ULC and Temple of Wicca.

And hospitals you need to be employeed by them in order to do rites on people you don't know.

[Philosophia]

I understand and agree with the point you are making. Ego hounds are a problem in all walks of life. But I don't think those of us who use the term Priest or Priestess for genuine spiritual reasons should have to alter our language just to disassociate ourselves from people who abuse the term.

:qft: I absolutely agree. It's the same with any word that gets misused and misrepresented.

[Darkest Eve]

I think that the best way to think of the distinction between priest/ess and clergy is that all clergy are priest/ess, but not all priest/ess are clergy. (Sorry for the grammatical weirdness -- I'm not sure how else to be clear!) Just like all Wiccans are Witches, but not all Witches are Wiccans.



I think that is the perfect explanation, and I would agree. :)

[odubhain]

Another QFT.

Also I'll add to the thread.. that =>
To be recognized as legal Clergy here in the states isn't easy.
Here in SC.. declaring yourself Wiccan won't let you do squat in and of itself.
However there are ways around that. You can be recognised and ordained by the ULC (http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=main).. you can have ordainment from Temple of Wicca (http://www.rollanet.org/~mdoc/pagan/index.html) both of which are recognised federally and therefore by the state of SC. I can't speak for other states as I've not had to deal with them legally.

Try to walk into a hospital and claim clergy status and attend to those who wish to have alternative spirituality and see where one gets.

Shrugs.. unsure if that matters any but just being a coven leader doesn't always ensure you can have a legitimate wedding in some states like this one.
you should check it out to see and ensure.
sermons.. shrugs...

oh thought I'd add. yes I know Wicca is federally recognised.. but SC requires documentation of Ordination of many of these things. that is where the problem lies here.

Too often, government and religion become confused with one another even in countries where the constitutions attempt to keep them separated. In the United States, the government's duty is to generally protect the welfare of the people. In terms of religion, this only means that the government's role is to make certain that a religion really is a religion.

After that determination has been done according to clearly defined standards applied to all religions, then the government has no place or right whatsoever to meddle in the practice of religion. Religions that seek tax or business status or standing jump through a bunch of hopes to protect those interests (501c3 being one such hoop). Simply put, there are religious standards managed by religions and there are legal standards managed by the government. Often, the standing and status of a religion is based on a (small) number of followers, a defined creed/philosophy and a minimum number of years of existence and practice.

A religion must be recognized to have standing as a religion. Within a religion, priests and clerics require the same sort of recognition and standards. Ordination is the culmination of dedication and initiation into a priesthood in a religion. Service is the role of clergy whether that is service in ministering to people or working in research or education. The role of priests in religion is usually to preach and to conduct rituals (whether to/for the people and temples or as service to the gods).

Recognition is the key for religion, clergy and priesthoods. To be recognized, standards and definitions should exist. If none exist specifically for a religion, then the generally accepted standards and definitions are applied by the state/government. People can be priests or clergy simply by having a religion that is practiced by a minimum number of people where a priesthood is established based on defined practice and belief. Clergy's role in these religions is to perform the duties of clergy as the religion so defines. Priests can be clergy though not all clergy can be priests (or I should say can be fully priests). There are levels of priesthood and religious practice. Some religion have three levels. Some call these circles while others call these rings, ranks, colleges, hierarchies, etc.

If one wishes to practice a religion, then one must have a religion and follow that religion's codes and practices. The state cannot dictate religion except to the point where it conflicts with other rights of people (such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-big topic). Forget the government and follow the precepts and beliefs of one's religion in order to be a priest or clergy. Go out and do these tasks and fulfill these roles. Then you are a priest or clergy without further need of legitimization or recognition (other than of the followers and members of your chosen religion).

Searles O'Dubhain

[Morgaine_cla]

Greetings,

I'm probably going to get myself in loads of hot water here, but oh well... As ever, my response to this question arises from my personal experiences and observations of people in the wider Neopagan community...

The differences between a priesthood (as defined by Neopaganism) and clergy (as defined by mainstream society) are simple:


Clergy are authorized to perform legally binding religious ceremonies; Neopagan priesthoods are not.
Clergy are paid professionals; Neopagan priesthoods are mainly comprised of unpaid volunteers (i.e. amateurs).
Clergy must satisfy certain requirements for training and experience that are intended to protect the public from frauds by establishing a baseline standard for professional competence in the basic tenets of a professed faith and experience offering spiritual counsel. Neopagans have no shared criteria and no assessment vehicle through which to certify a standard level of quality for their collective priesthoods.

Clergy are ordained; Neopagan priesthoods are not. "Ordination" certifies that candidates completing seminary have met the minimum religious and legal requirements for clergy and (like licensure) provides a measure of accountability should problems arise.


Currently, religious and legal requirements for legal clergy are defined by Christian seminarian models. However, this could be because Neopagans don't have seminaries and have never established or enforced a criteria defining a universal standard for quality within their priesthoods. Most Neopagans rely on the honour system and tell the public to "seek at your own risk"...

Titles carry authority because the people who assume them also assume a special responsibility to use their specialized knowledge and skills in the service of others. If no service is provided, the titles remain empty and the authority pretended. As has been mentioned, ancient definitions of the functions of the priesthood included people dedicated to serving the gods at their shrines and/or temples, but since these shrines and temples served the public their priesthoods were still providing a public service. But can you serve others without having a following?

I would say yes, you can do it without a following, but you cannot serve others and remain completely self-involved. You can't just light a candle for world peace once a year and then devote the rest of your time to spell-casting for your own gain. For most Neopagans I've ever met, clergy is defined as being able to invoke deity; but (even were it was a safe procedure to perform alone) what purpose is served by invoking the gods at home alone? There are other, safer and simpler ways to raise one's vibrational rate, I assure you. Why do we feel we need a public title to maintain a profound personal spiritual practice?...

It's all a bit of a mystery to me. Why must we get status all mixed up where it doesn't belong? Because that's what I think it is, really. People see these titles as implying a certain status and so they want to use them, but titles have public functions. We've no need for them in private. No matter how important or glamorous it might sound to say, "I'm an MD", I am not an MD; I'm a traditional healer. If I want to become an MD I must get licensed and open a practice, and the same applies here, I feel. If you want to be a priest/ess you have to serve others first, before you serve yourself. Your service is dedicated in the name of your patron deity.

So that's how I see it... The eggs may now fly. :boing:

[Ben Gruagach]

Actually, clergy is not as regulated and defined among mainstream religions as you have made it seem. Sure, the big religious organizations tend to have seminaries, ruling bodies (like the Vatican for Catholics), etc. but not all groups do.

Whether a particular clergy-person is able to perform legal services such as weddings depends on where they operate. In some areas there are very minimal standards and anyone really can step up and do the job with nothing more than a piece of paper they printed off from a website (the old "Universal Life Church" instant ordination trick.) In other areas you have to get authorization from civil authorities to be able to perform a wedding legally and it makes no difference what your religious standing is. And in some areas they do automatically recognize marriages performed by specific mainstream religious clergy. So being clergy, even for a mainstream religion, doesn't guarantee being able to perform legal weddings just as one example.

Mainstream clergy are also not necessarily paid. Again, many are paid or are supported by their religious organization for the work that they do, but it's not universal. There are all sorts of religious groups that operate through the volunteer work of unpaid clergy. I understand that it's more common in Islam, for instance, to have unpaid clergy although it depends on the specific group or sect, and having full-time paid clergy is becoming more common. It also exists among Mormons from what I've read.

If you do a web search for "unpaid clergy" you'll find that it's not as rare among non-Pagans as you might think.

[*oonagh*]

i believe that titles are indicative of organized religion. since i don't believe in organized religion, i can't believe that titles mean anything at all.

[Dumunzi]

I may have replied to this thread all ready but my personal opinion is that unless your following a specific path, a deity, you can't be a Priest/ess. It doesn't compute for me. <_^

[Dewduster]

i believe that titles are indicative of organized religion. since i don't believe in organized religion, i can't believe that titles mean anything at all.




As the word “priest" is used in the world today. :rolleyes: Before the meaning of the word was altered by the Catholics for their own us, the word’s meaning was “ Sacred and Elder “. :holycow: :elder: Membership in any given group is not mention in any books relating to the original definition of the word priest in the study of Etymology.

The meaning of Words does change over time. HOWEVER, I am very suspicious of a words new meaning when it is caused by a person or group that changes a word to give him/them undue credit. As is the case of the word priest.

Priestess was not changed. The word and the women who earned the old title were destroyed between the 13th and 18th century.



Today, women who worship and are consecrated in the name of our Holy Mother, as were the Priestess in the time of Old English ( German, French etc) are making a come back! Blessed Be. :thewave::colorful::dancy:

[Phoenix Blue]

Lets say that one can be a priest / priestess without a following they administer too. Yet would that not place them in the category of an acolyte or similar position that has no clergy position before a following but pays homage to their diety?

Or has the concept of Priest / Priestess become diluted to the point where it has no clear identity?
The point of establishing members of a Wiccan coven as priests or priestesses was, in my recollection, to establish that there is no "laity" in Wicca. There is no one to intercede between the devotee and the God and Goddess -- no priest intermediaries, no bishops, no cardinal, no pope. Therefore first-degree initiates are made priests and priestesses to signify their direct connection with the Divine.

[Lunacie]

The point of establishing members of a Wiccan coven as priests or priestesses was, in my recollection, to establish that there is no "laity" in Wicca. There is no one to intercede between the devotee and the God and Goddess -- no priest intermediaries, no bishops, no cardinal, no pope. Therefore first-degree initiates are made priests and priestesses to signify their direct connection with the Divine.

Yup, you got that right. :uhhuhuh:

Seems like someone made that point earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating.

[*oonagh*]

ah...well...that explains it.
i'm living in the now with today's interpretations of the words.
and
i'm not wiccan.
so, my view on this is just different.

[Dewduster]

ah...well...that explains it.
i'm living in the now with today's interpretations of the words.
and
i'm not wiccan.
so, my view on this is just different.

Maybe not so different. :smile:

I believe we are not that far apart. I replied to your earlier statement because I too suspect ALL organize religions. I am suspicious of all organized religions, and especially any newly organized religion that is made of Witches in any number over 13!!! :weirdsmil (even though I am a Witch of 52yrs) :weirdsmil

As to today’s interpretations of words, I am very suspicious of any one who changes the accepted meaning or a very old word to conform to their believes.( note: Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell)

[Morgaine_cla]

Actually, clergy is not as regulated and defined among mainstream religions as you have made it seem.

I guess I did not make myself clear. I am referring to my understanding of these terms (which is all any of us can do, really).

No doubt there are exceptions; I am not trying to "write the book" on this subject. Like most people here (yourself included), I define these terms according to my own observations, experience, and research. Naturally you have the right to disagree, but until my own observations, experience, and research corroborate yours, I stand by my original statement. :smileroll

[Shawn Blackwolf]

And I can assure you , that some of us have VERY different views
than you seem to...perfectly safe for an adept...:bigredgri



(even were it was a safe procedure to perform alone) what purpose is served by invoking the gods at home alone? There are other, safer and simpler ways to raise one's vibrational rate, I assure you.

[Dio]

I have not read the entire thread, so if I've repeated anyone's point, I apologize.

My answer to the question is yes. In a non-traditional sense, you can be a priest/ess without a following.

Priest/esses teach. They are a vehicle for the divine, the hollow bone that the original poster made reference to. That means that regardless of who you have in your midst, you are a channeler for the Divine. You do not need to be recognized as priest/priestess by anyone else. You do not need a following of like-minded folks to be a priest/ess.

You also don't even have to call yourself priest/ess in order to fill this capacity. It's between you and the gods, and anyone who needs you will come to you. Family, friends, co-workers, anyone. Not just similarly minded spiritual clan.

People "follow" cult leaders and messiahs, not teachers.

[Cassie]

The differences between a priesthood (as defined by Neopaganism) and clergy (as defined by mainstream society) are simple:

Well, as other have pointed out, the differences are actually not so simple and I think it is a mistake to assume what one religion, tradition or person defines as a priest or priestess should be measured or judged by the understanding of another religion, tradition or person.


I would say yes, you can do it without a following, but you cannot serve others and remain completely self-involved. You can't just light a candle for world peace once a year and then devote the rest of your time to spell-casting for your own gain.
Well actually, I think you could.
But what assumptions are you making here?


For most Neopagans I've ever met, [/FONT][/SIZE]clergy is defined as being able to invoke deity; but (even were it was a safe procedure to perform alone) what purpose is served by invoking the gods at home alone?
There could be a hundred or more purposes.


There are other, safer and simpler ways to raise one's vibrational rate, I assure you.
Maybe there are, but raising ones own vibrational rate is certainly not the only reason one might want to invoke deity.
So to shatter some of the assumptions you seem to be making... Taking the title of priest or priestess is not only done to invoke deity, and invoking deity is not in many people's paths or traditions done only to raise ones vibrational rate.


Why do we feel we need a public title to maintain a profound personal spiritual practice?...
That's another big assuption. Some people might feel that need, but most (I would guess) do not.
My personal reasons for using the title priestess have not one thing to do with anything you are generalising about here.


It's all a bit of a mystery to me. Why must we get status all mixed up where it doesn't belong? Because that's what I think it is, really.
Well I think you are wrong. Earlier in this thread I conceeded that there are ego hounds in all aspects of society who will abuse any titel on offer. Yes there are rogue Pagan clergy just as there are in every other religion. There are also rogue teachers, rogue doctors, etc, etc.
If I refer to myself as priestess it is only to honour and serve my Goddess; far from being a status symbol, it is something by which most of society sees me as a bit strange and eccentric!!




[FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=5]I

No doubt there are exceptions; I am not trying to "write the book" on this subject. Like most people here (yourself included), I define these terms according to my own observations, experience, and research. Naturally you have the right to disagree, but until my own observations, experience, and research corroborate yours, I stand by my original statement. :smileroll
Fair enough, but you do seem to be making a lot of assumptions through the lens of your observations, experience and research. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate some of them?

[kaosxmage]

For most Neopagans I've ever met, [/FONT][/SIZE]clergy is defined as being able to invoke deity; but (even were it was a safe procedure to perform alone) what purpose is served by invoking the gods at home alone? There are other, safer and simpler ways to raise one's vibrational rate, I assure you.


A great reason to invoke a God alone is to magnify the Gods inherent traits and/or energy to your own. It's a time tested and proven method to expand your mind, awareness, and control over emotional states. I've invoked many times on this idea to great success and advantage. This is a tool for every Adept to use. I have yet to hear a God complain.

In fact, you can invoke much more than Gods. Try Mr. Spock for that science exam, or Bugs Bunny for getting out of jams. Possibilities are endless. Quantum Physics tells me so.

:evilway:

--Kaos

[Morgaine_cla]

This may be true, but my concern is that few of us have perfect discernment. I think I'm pretty experienced, but I would not invoke alone if only as a precaution against that one day that I'm a bit too cocky for my own good, or just not clear on current Shadow issues. "Like Attracts Like" is not always our friend in this. If you have any unacknowledged issues they are just as capable of bringing something in as your conscious intention. I've seen too many people screw up and end up bringing in something different than what they expected (with devastating results) to feel comfortable with this approach. We always have others there to provide backup in the event that the unthinkable happens.

I understand if you feel differently, I just couldn't work that way myself, and our Tradition of Druidry does not support it.

In contemplation...

[Morgaine_cla]

Well, as other have pointed out, the differences are actually not so simple and I think it is a mistake to assume what one religion, tradition or person defines as a priest or priestess should be measured or judged by the understanding of another religion, tradition or person.

Language relies on words having specific, shared definitions; without them there is no basis for discussion. If your claim is that we do not share basic definitions of terms, then you have no basis upon which to assume anything about what I mean. Thinking you know what I am assuming is an acknowledgement of the existence of shared definitions; in which case the real issue would be your resentment that they might be applied to you... On that basis, if what others have pointed out could make your assertions true, it would undermine the basis for your whole argument.


Well actually, I think you could.
But what assumptions are you making here?

I believe I already answered that: you can't serve others by only serving yourself. But we've already heard my "assumptions"; I am much more interested in hearing your assumptions.


There could be a hundred or more purposes.

Easily said... Perhaps you could name some for further discussion?


So to shatter some of the assumptions you seem to be making... Taking the title of priest or priestess is not only done to invoke deity, and invoking deity is not in many people's paths or traditions done only to raise ones vibrational rate.

Excuse me for interrupting, but what were you planning to "shatter my assumptions with"?... What new insights are you offering here?...


That's another big assuption. Some people might feel that need, but most (I would guess) do not.

Even if what you assume were true, the mere fact that "most people do not feel that way" does not make them right.


My personal reasons for using the title priestess have not one thing to do with anything you are generalising about here.

No, they remain a complete mystery. We haven't even a generalization to go on!... It's easy to criticize someone else when you're not taking any risks yourself, but not very persuasive...


Well I think you are wrong.

Well I'm dashed.


Earlier in this thread I conceeded that there are ego hounds in all aspects of society who will abuse any titel on offer. Yes there are rogue Pagan clergy just as there are in every other religion. There are also rogue teachers, rogue doctors, etc, etc.

Yes, I see that... I didn't realise that "rogue teachers, doctors, etc., etc." somehow justify or excuse bogus clergy.


If I refer to myself as priestess it is only to honour and serve my Goddess; far from being a status symbol, it is something by which most of society sees me as a bit strange and eccentric!!

The title honours you, not the Goddess. It is your service that honours Her, and that requires no title... And there's plenty of precedent for "strange and eccentric" as symbols of status. Whole genres of modern music are built upon the idea.


Fair enough, but you do seem to be making a lot of assumptions through the lens of your observations, experience and research. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate some of them?

No, actually, I think you just made my points very well. Thank you for your illuminating reply.

[memnoch]

everyone defines things differently. I am considered a minister, a priest, a clergyman, and a reverend, yet I have no flock. Thanks to the ULC anyone can be anything they want...what words are used are meaningless because their definitions have been blurred over the years. So what you call yourself is one thing, how people view you is another.

Oh, and an FYI, I am also looking at becoming a pope and a jedi knight through the ULC when I have the money to spend...my title with be The Reverend Pope Shaun Patrick I...actually I might change it to The Right Reverend Pope Shaun Patrick I...and when I get my honorary Doctrite there I could add Dr. somewhere in there.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Kaosmage is not the only one...as I said , many of us have done this
through the ages , and shall continue to do so...

For whatever our personal reasons , whenever , and , in the most
part , wherever we choose...

Fear of what can happen , which underlies "concern" , is the very
first thing which "negative" energies feed on , and utilize...

I work with the Underworld beings , as much as the Upperworld...

That is the Faery Tradition , as we have known it , since the beginning of
our mgieck...and , the test , is if one can do it alone , with no backup...sink ,
or swim...

Personally...I love the challenge...for our Tradition is not to honor , nor
worship the gods...yet to become the gods...again...

So...if we cannot face any god...then we have already failed the test...

And that...is unthinkable...:bigredgri...game over...try again !



I understand if you feel differently, I just couldn't work that way myself, and our Tradition of Druidry does not support it.

[Release.the.bats]

In my opinion .... A priest/priestess is not just a leader but a follower too. I believe he/she is a servant to god/goddess. I think that it starts with a declaration of diety. Once you've declared yourself to one exclusively then you can be a priest/priestess of that god/goddess.... Followers or not.

I do feel that a priest/priestess should be a student of that diety. And, I think it's a role not to be taken lightly.

I agree.:boing:

[Shanti]

If your solo...why would you care about a title anyhow?
Titles are for others not for yourself.
Heck our names are just so others have a reference of our being.
Solo, you dont even need a name!

[KylalaKitty]

You can become a legally ordained minister on the Univeral Life Church website for free. Isnt that nuts? Its legal and all. You can marry people, funerals, baptisms. Check out the site.

http://www.themonastery.org/

[Kaliel]

Well that solves my query then, I guess I am a priestess in my own right . . .

[Lunacie]

You can become a legally ordained minister on the Univeral Life Church website for free. Isnt that nuts? Its legal and all. You can marry people, funerals, baptisms. Check out the site.

http://www.themonastery.org/

Didn't read all the responses did you? It's already been mentioned several times that one can get legal recognition from the ULC. Some of us have done this in order to perform legal weddings in our states, some in order to do tarot readings for payment - yeah we have to have to have a minister's license in order to do tarot readings. :smileroll

[Darth Brooks]

No, I don't think you need to have a "following" in order to be a priest. I think that becoming a priest is the process of being ordained to a higher level of spiritual sensitivity by the god or goddess one works with. In other words, it is something that the deity decides, not the person who becomes a priest. One is a priest because one's deity has chosen them with that specific purpose in mind. Not because one chooses to become a priest, or calls oneself a priest in the company of others, at least IMO. YMMV.

Now some deities are not very big on having large, organized followings; cases in point would include not only Set, but also Pan, Lilith, etc. It makes sense that if such deities choose to ordain one or more of their followers to a level of priesthood, said priests will not be expected to serve any congregation, since there isn't much of a congregation to speak of for these divinities. Rather, a priest's work may be to serve everyone everywhere, to the best of their ability, regardless of social, religious, or political distinctions. The fact that one is a priest of this or that deity may not even be important enough to make a big deal about it.

In ancient Egypt, the priests served the common people, but at the same time they did not hold religious services in the same way that people hold them today. Many of the important rituals to the Gods were performed in the sanctuaries of the temples, away from the eyes of the public. You couldn't just show up for mass and enjoy it as a social event, because what the priests did with the Gods on a regular basis was considered private. I think this shows that the position of being a priest is more of a sign of internal responsibility to the divine powers than it is a sign of external responsibility to any particular flock or fold.

And although many people bring up great points about how to become a legally ordained minister and what not...The people in our coven literally do not care if we are ever "legally recognized" or not. The government cannot regulate religion, it can only regulate the way that religious groups use their funds. It can't tell you not to call yourself a priest and not to lead rituals, bless somebody's house, etc. The government has no legal authority to prevent people from doing that, and because it is a secular institution, it really hasn't got much to say about who can or cannot be a priest, either. It can really only interfere if your religious group makes a profit off of its services and has not registered for tax-exempt status (unless the profit you make is insignificant enough for your group to be automatically considered tax-exempt, of course). The issue with the government is more about money than spirituality, and since we do not charge money for our services anyway, we really don't give a flying hug about being "legally ordained" by anyone. We are ordained by Set and that is the only authority we need when it comes to matters of the spirit.

All this, of course, makes it very difficult for me to earn a living by conducting rituals for people, blessing houses, etc. But that's the point. I don't believe that's really "earning a living." I also believe Set will stomp my ass if I ever take money for something like that. Act like a priest when Set calls on you to do so, work your ass off the rest of the time, that's what it's like.