Here is the quote about how intention to use contraception figures in to the validity of marriage. He gives various cases, but concludes that a marriage made in such a way is still presumed to be valid.

It is my understanding that holding off having kids until a predetermined milestone or date, does not make the marriage invalid. Because, technically, you are open to having children. However, not to be open for kids would definitely make it invalid.

What I write about is the deliberate intention not to have children, not even being open to children, and to manifest this intention through artficial contraception.

I have a very hard time understanding how error about the nature of marriage (exclusive and indissoluble) does not ipso facto invalidate a marriage, or at the very least a sacramental one (as opposed to a natural marriage between a baptized spouse and an unbaptized one, or two unbaptized spouses).  To confect a sacrament validly requires the intent to do what the Church does (facere quod facit ecclesia), and the Church does not intend to confect a sacrament that can be dissolved by any earthly power.

I know there is back-and-forth on whether a sacrament is confected when two Protestants marry.  The modern concept is that they do have a valid sacramental marriage, and if this was seen differently in the past, I would be interested to know the particulars of that.  And as to the Orthodox, well, they would come back and say "we don't speak of sacraments as being valid or invalid" (or something like that).  They've always got an answer.

.

Here's what this Dominican theologian wrote before Vatican 2:

An error or mistake of law concerns the nature or essential object and properties of the matrimonial contract, as in the case of ignorance. Thus, a simple error regarding the unity or the indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage, even though the motivating reason for entering into the contract, does not invalidate the matrimonial consent. A simple error is one which remains in the intellect without a positive act following in conformity with it. Thus, as the essence of matrimony has inseparably attached to it is essential properties, in consenting to marriage as it is in itself, consent is thereby also given to its properties of unity and indissolubility. To know a thing with all its properties and to will a thing differ; one can simply will a thing as it is in itself and not know very well its properties or be mistaken about them. Thus an error about the essential qualities of marriage does not necessarily invalidate it. The general intention to contract marriage as instituted by God prevails over the error. Although many consider marriage to be dissoluble and not sacramental, e.g. protestants, Jєωs, infidels, yet they normally will to contract marriage as it is. They probably would positively exclude these properties if they were later questioned about them, but they did not actually exclude them at the time the consent was given.

I am quoting from a Dominican theologian named Fr. Nicholas Halligan who wrote this in 1962, and explains the true teaching of the Church. I have not seen you quote any pre-Vatican 2 theologians on this subject.

Theologians are not canonists, and canonists are not theologians. They are VERY different fields.

My academic background is Church history but with additional studies in sacramental theology (my doctorate is in liturgy) and canon law. I do not feign to be a canon lawyer (JCL or JCD), but I have multi-year learning in canon law, western and some eastern.

Instead of quoting this or that person whose views are not necessarily pertinent, where are your credentials?

But you made no distinction between what he calls simple (purely intellectual) error and an intention of the will.

Let's say I want to get a certain kind of dog.  You buy the dog and then find out that it sheds.  I didn't know this breed of dog shed.  You generally know about "dogs", though not about all the properties of dogs.  This did not undermine or in any way "inform" your intention / will to get a dog, even if "had you known" you may not have gotten said dog.  At the time, your ignorance was in your intellect only and had no effect on your intention to get a dog.

This seems to be the kind of ignorance he's talking about, a purely intellectual ignorance that did not factor positively into your decision to get married at the time.

Now, let's say that you intended to get a dog that does not shed, and your choice of a dog was informed at least in part by your intention to get a non-shedding dog.  Then you get the dog, only to find out that it does in fact shed.  Here ignorance (or lack of knowledge) was involved in the original act of the will.