By making that declaration, you're not doing what the Church does. You're thereby taking it out of the context of an ecclesiastical act. With +Lienart, we're talking about a situation where he showed up at a Catholic cathedral and conducted the ordination ceremony that by all appearances was an official function of the Church. By declaring outwardly "I have no intention to baptize." you're actually adulterating the form of Baptism ex adjuintis. You perform it in a CONTEXT which makes it quite clear that you don't intend to do it. Just as if a couple people were goofing around pretending to be baptizing each other; the context there indicates that they are not intending to perform the rite but to merely simulate it.
If some diary entry of +Lienart came out tomorrow stating, "When ordaining Lefebvre, I deliberately withheld my intention." I would still not hesitate for one second to go receive the Sacraments from an SSPX priest that was ordained directly or indirectly by +Lefebvre.
I don’t really have any more to add.
All the popes, saints, doctors of the Church, and theologians I cited concur that a COVERT CONTRARY intention invalidates the sacrament (despite the presumption of validity in the absence of this contrary intention being manifested exteriorly).
I cited Popes Alexander VIII and Leo XIII, St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Gasparri, and Fr. Hunter.
Though a couple people objected to their theology, none even attempted a refutation, instead preferring to state again and again their own subjective opinions.
While I don’t doubt CI theologians are much more reliable than those names given above, I think I’ll go out on a limb and stick with them anyway.