This only applies to the sacraments of the Old rite, which were worded with precise language so that the Church’s intentions were fulfilled when the priest used such words.  

As Cardinal Ottaviani, Bacci et all explained in the “Ottaviani intervention”, the new mass and sacraments have new language and such wording does NOT provide the proper intention.  So the intention for the new rite must be provided by the priest, which is a “crap shoot” because that all depends on 1) if they are a valid priest and 2) if they were trained properly in the seminaries.  

Hi PV-

The “essential rites” of the old and new consecratory prayers of Mass are identical, and consequently the intention to consecrate is equally expressed in either.

Sean, your position is based upon many assumptions and opinions and more often than not we would seem to have a perfect storm roiling about the false mass so as to lean towards its possible validity, which is itself is unimportant because it is not Catholic in the first place.

As Father Hesse says, "it is not a work of the Catholic Church", and as Father Wathen states, "it is always a great sacrilege."
Good and true statements of two principled Catholic men.

My “opinion” is based on the doctrine of the Church which, however distasteful to you, must still be applied, yes, even to the NOM.

You seem emotionally and intellectually unable to digest that, as though doing so would be tantamount to saying there's nothing wrong with the NOM or attending it.

You are an extremest because your mind thinks only in absolutes: Everything is either 100% "this" with no exceptions, or it is 100% "that" with no exceptions.

With that kind of approach you will err frequently in theology (for example, it has led you to sedevacantism).

Feeneyism would also be a likely destination for you at some point.

"Feeneyism" is Church dogma. EENS.

I'm not going there.

I'm not going there.

You're the one who went there in the first place.

My “opinion” is based on the doctrine of the Church which, however distasteful to you, must still be applied, yes, even to the NOM.

You seem emotionally and intellectually unable to digest that, as though doing so would be tantamount to saying there's nothing wrong with the NOM or attending it.

You are an extremest because your mind thinks only in absolutes: Everything is either 100% "this" with no exceptions, or it is 100% "that" with no exceptions.

With that kind of approach you will err frequently in theology (for example, it has led you to sedevacantism).

Feeneyism would also be a likely destination for you at some point.

The above mentioned clerics opinions are indeed based upon the doctrine of the Church, and if I might say, they knew and understood that doctrine much better and more succinctly than you.
 It is the doctrine of the Church which leads me to reject the new order because in where it applies to such an deliberate effort to destroy the Mass of the Church it is absolute. You on the other hand set aside the fundamental issues to use smaller  diversionary point of doctrine to argue it validity.
You and the Bishop never bring up the problematic validity of Novus Ordo priests or the danger it presents.(conveniently)
Your theological approach to theology seems to be that everything is negotiable, if you prove that a point over here can be true, then point A or B must give way to your theory about the subject. You are very selective as to what you argue and propose, so it always seems to come out in your favor.
I am not a sedevacantist but I am faithful to the Dogmas of the Church in the matter of exclusive salvation as found only in the Catholic Church. It may pain you to know that there are doctrines and principles which are 100% absolute and not open to interpretation or change, but there are.

This is not about faith. It is about doing something the contrary of what the thing is intended to do.

In any case, even if you are right, it still does not justify presuming the sacraments are valid, which is what you are insinuating. It is more prudent to re-do them. And that is all I am saying. The Church will judge the rest in good time.

There is of course precedence for what you are saying in regard to baptism. Even a Jєω can baptise validly.

Is there any definitive pronouncements in a similar vein in relation to the other sacraments?

Flats-

Wrong again: The presumption is always in favor of validity, not invalidity.

Your opinion is entirely based on negative doubt, which never suffices to reproduce a sacrament.

Positive doubt is what the Church requires in order to conditionally repeat a sacrament.

The point I think that would be made is that considering the Mass only a meal and not a sacrifice, constitutes a postive doubt. It is deliberately going against what the Church does.

If one had no opinion either way, then you might be right.