http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/qtvjmcn.htm

6)  NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORD'S WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST

The Source of Power in These Words
47.  From some examples given above it was seen that as regards the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation a slight variation in wording is permissible, provided that the essential sense of the words of the form is not affected.  But in the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist a special case presents itself.  Here there must be no variation whatsoever.

48.  In all the sacraments except the Holy Eucharist the minister has an act to perform in addition to pronouncing the required words of the form.  For example, pouring water in Baptism, anointing with chrism in Confirmation, and in Holy Orders the imposition of hands, etc., which constitute the matter of that sacrament.  But in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the priest has no act to perform except the pronouncing of the necessary words. (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 1).

49.  Moreover, the power of the form of this sacrament is derived solely from the fact that the words spoken by the priest are the exact words of Our Lord.  "But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 1).

50.  "Ambrose says (De Sacram.. iv): 'The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. . . . (W)hen the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ.'"  (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 1).

Our Lord's Words in the Ancient Form
51.  It cannot be doubted that the ancient, established form for the consecration of the wine comprises the words of Our Lord.  But inasmuch as there are always those pseudo-Catholics who relish questioning everything - the revered Traditions of the Church and Holy Scripture not excluded - the following proofs are presented.

52.  Proof from Holy Scripture.  As St. Thomas observes, "Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 3).  In point of fact, the only words of this form which are not to be found in the Holy Scriptures are the following: (a) and eternal and (b) The Mystery of Faith.

53.  But Tradition reveals to us that these words, and eternal and The Mystery of Faith were also from Our Lord.  "The words added, namely, eternal and Mystery of Faith, were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from Our Lord."  (Ibid.)

54.  And, elsewhere in discussing the question, "Whether the Words Spoken in This Sacrament Are Properly Framed?"  (Summa Th., III, Q. 83, Art. 4), the Angelic Doctor makes this observation, "We find it stated in De Consecr., dist. 1, that 'James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil, bishop of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the Mass.'"

55.  To summarize: The words which had always been used for the form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist were the words of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as proved from Holy Scripture and Tradition.  These words were used by the Apostles themselves.  It is by virtue of these words that the form for this sacrament derives its power and efficacy.

Putting Words into Our Lord's Mouth
56.  The new "form" for the consecration of the wine alleges that Our Lord said: "to be shed for you and for all men . . . etc."  There is no evidence - either in Holy Scripture or in the Traditions handed down - that Our Lord actually said this when instituting the Holy Eucharist.

57.  Moreover, all the evidence is that He did not say: "for all men," when instituting the Most Holy Sacrament.  St. Matthew (26,28) writes that He said, "for many."  And also St. Mark (14,24) records that Our Lord said, "for many."  But nowhere in Holy Scripture - neither in St. Paul nor the Evangelists - do we find that Our Lord said, "for all men."  Now whom are we to believe?  Are we to believe St. Mark and St. Matthew, who was actually there at the Last Supper (and both of whom were divinely inspired to write what they wrote)?  Or, are we to believe an "enlightened" clique of mid-twentieth-century Modernists and Innovators?

58.  Even in ordinary writing or oratory, careful scholars are diligent in using the exact words of another person whenever attributing to him a quotation.  How much more diligence is demanded when attributing a direct quote to Jesus!  "It is not lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery." (Summa Th., III, Q. 60, Art. 8).

59.  Now, the authors of this new Canon boldly claim that Our Lord said something that He clearly and obviously did not say.  (In Part 12 it will be shown that Our Lord could not have said what they claim He did.)  The text of this new Canon reads precisely: "He . . . gave the cup . . . AND SAID:".  The "quotation" immediately following includes the bogus phrase: "for all men so that sins may be forgiven."  THIS IS A FORGERY, and those who are responsible for it must be deemed guilty of a deliberate deception, unless they can prove that they are merely completely inept and most culpably negligent.

60.  It might be remarked, in passing, that the phrase for you and for all men grammatically is inelegant in that it is redundant.  By analogy, a speaker does not single out one person in a group and say, "This is for you and for all in this room," but rather would he say, "This is for you and for all others in this room."  For it is obvious that the person who is singled out is automatically included in "all in this room."  Thus the Innovators even go so far as to attribute inferior rhetoric to Our Lord.

61.  From the foregoing it is clear that, by tampering with the words of Our Lord, our Modernists are endangering the very source of the power of this sacrament.

"However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention."

SSPX web site

Even the Traditional Mass couldn't guarantee this kind of intention.  Of course this is the WRONG understanding of intention.

Intending to DO what the Church DOES simply means to follow the rite prescribed by the Church ... regardless of what heresy a priest might hold regarding the nature of the Mass and Transubstantiation, just performing the rite prescribed by the Church IS intending to DO what the Church DOES.  That's why it is phrased that way rather than "Intending what the Church intends."

http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm

It is not Catholic not one bit. The Priest is but telling a story.

I still don't see where the Priest takes the initiative to go unto the altar with intent to enter into a sacrifice with God. He must announce his intent by his own free will. Even though he is ordained doesn't mean this act of free will does not need to happen and it is in the present,not in the past.

I beleive that, in regard to sacramental validity, the following authoritatively settled what is meant by "intention":

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.

Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 18 September 1896.

Although this was written with particular reference to the Sacrament of Holy Order, I believe that the underlying principle applies to every Sacrament.

It seems to be arguable that the necessary intention is wanting to the Novus Ordo Missae, precisely because, by it, the rite of Mass WAS “changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament”.