Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer
Today the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith answered two recent disputed questions regarding allowable
baptismal formulas and what to do with persons "baptized" using them:
Made public today were the responses of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to two questions
concerning the validity of Baptism conferred with certain non-standard
formulae.
The first question is: "Is a Baptism
valid if conferred with the words 'I baptise you in the name of the
Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier', or 'I baptise you
in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the
Sustainer'"?
The second question is: "Must people
baptised with those formulae be baptised 'in forma absoluta'?"
American Papist has the story and I doubt my readers will be surprised at the answers by the CDF.
It does make me reflect on the fact that progressives keep finding new ways for people to not actually receive the sacraments. For example women priests, Communal confession without individual confession, and invalid baptismal formulas. And when they are not finding ways for people to not actually receive the sacraments they make excuses for how people can receive them unworthily.
Known as 
Great answers from the Vatican. Now what the infant baptisms done by dipping the baby's posterior into the font, as opposed to pouring water on the head? An unfortunate practice around this country, but does that mean the child is not baptized?
Liberals at work alright...
The C-S-R formula is heretical because it is modalist or tritheist but not Trinitarian. Gosh do I miss the year 1053.
C-S-R: I tell my students that this isn't the name of God but His job description!
This was a big story over here in Australia, as almost all baptisims in the Archdiocise of Brisbane (and its suffergins) were using this formula for something nearing 20 years. I'll try and find an article, but there were alot of people who feared their baptisim would be void becaus of the idiot priests using the formula.
"Liberator"? Liberator from what? That is so vague and undefined that the parents may well ask that their child be liberated from whatever it is they're against.
And, if I get my theology right, using "Father-Son-Holy Spirit" defines the trinitarian unity of God, but "Creator-Redeemer-Sanctifier" defines the roles of each Person without defining the relationship, don't they?
Ray, exactly right, my man!
Fr. Philip, OP
This response underlines the fact that persons can not be reduced to functional realities, and highlights the priority of being over doing.
For instance, the word "wife" bears a much richer, more personal meaning than "intimacy provider" or "baby maker".
The deepest essence of personhood is to be in relation.
I just feel bad for all those parents who did not know better. Can you imagine getting notice that your child that you are trying to raise in the faith is not yet baptised and then trying explain that to the child?
I like "Rock, Paper, and Scissors" myself.
Go back to the Word of God:
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Not to mention that 'Creator-Liberator-Sustainer' sounds too much like names which comic book heroes are named, say, the 'Punisher' (Is he the 4th Person of the Trinity, or rather Quadrinity then?)
Plus, 'Creator-Liberator-Sustainer' or 'Redeemer and Sanctifier' are obviously in the male form. Shouldn't it be 'Creatress-Redemptress-Sanctifieress' or 'Liberatress' and 'Sustaintress'?
I'd add:
Either 'Liberatress' or 'Liberatrix' and 'Redemptress' or 'Redemptrix'.