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.

From the link you just gave me....


"If it cannot be said, as with Anglican orders, that the Novus Ordo rite was changed with the manifest intention of rejecting a sacrificing priesthood, nevertheless the deliberate exclusion of the notion of propitiation, in order to please Protestants, could easily be considered as casting a doubt on the intention of doing what the Church does, namely of offering a true and propitiatory sacrifice"

Do you agree with this Sean?

                     LUDOVIC CARDINAL BILLOT, S.J.
                    ON THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH:
          A COMMENTARY ON THE THIRD PART OF ST. THOMAS, VOL. 1.

                       THESIS XVIII (q. 64, a. 8 )

   It is Catholic dogma that for the validity of a sacrament, there must 
be in the minister the intention of doing what the Church does. Moreover, 
it is commonly and truly held that an external intention, as they call it, 
does not suffice, but that an internal intention is required.

   The intention of doing what the Church does, whatever that may be in 
the opinion of him who administers the sacrament, is said to be required. 
Thus St. Thomas: "Although he who does not believe that baptism is a 
sacrament, or does not believe that it has any spiritual power, does not 
intend when he baptizes to confer a sacrament, nevertheless he intends to 
do what the Church does, even if he counts that as nothing; and because the 
Church intends to do something, therefore, as a consequence of this, he 
intends implicitly to do something, though not explicitly."[1] But it is 
not necessary that the minister think as the Church does, or that he not 
err concerning her teaching; for it is enough if his intention is towards 
something which is identically that which the Church intends, or, something 
which amounts to the same thing, for example, if he intends to do that 
which Christ instituted, or which is commanded in the Gospel, or which 
Christians are accustomed to do according to the prescription of their 
religion. (Thus it is apparent how even a Jєω or a pagan can have an 
intention sufficient for baptizing. Consider for example a catechumen 
placed in a moment of necessity, who asks a pagan saying, "Do for me, I 
entreat you, this mercy, that you pour water on me, pronouncing the words, 
'I baptize you,' etc., with the intention of doing what I myself intend to 
receive according to the prescription of the law of Christians.)

   Although, however, all Catholics agree in asserting the necessity of 
the aforesaid intention, in the sixteenth century a certain new opinion was 
introduced by Catharinus, asserting that a merely external intention 
suffices. Furthermore it is called external, not because considered in 
itself it is not internal, but because the whole intention is directed 
towards external appearance; for according to Catharinus, it consists in 
the will by which someone wishes to conduct himself externally as a serious 
minister of the sacrament, although within himself he intends to ridicule 
or to imitate. Nevertheless, most of the few theologians who agree with 
Catharinus say that the aforesaid external intention does not suffice 
unless the minister in question confects the sacrament in the place and 
sacred vestments according to the customary rite of the Church, for, they 
say, through these circuмstances an exterior rite in itself indifferent is 
determined to be sacramental.

   Furthermore, the opinion of Catharinus is not held in honor by the 
anathema of Trent. "I deem," says Pallavicini,[1] "that the opinion 
proscribed by Trent[3] is the same which Leo X condemned in Luther by his 
Constitution: viz., that the sacrament was instituted by Christ in such a 
manner, that even if the minister carries it out in manifest derision and 
mockery, the effect follows... But in truth the Catholic theologians whom 
we have enumerated, agree in demanding for the efficacy of a sacrament the 
will, not only of following the external action, considered physically, 
which the Church prescribes, (which will is likewise present in the man who 
administers the sacrament in jest), but of exercising his action through 
the exterior ceremony of a man acting seriously, and through the appearance 
of a man directing that ceremony where the Church directs it." -- No less 
to the contrary is the most common teaching of theologians, to which one 
must completely hold fast. It teaches that an internal intention is 
required, one which in other words is not directly wholly to the exterior 
appearance, but is an intention by which the minister not only wishes to 
refrain from all show of simulation as regards the action which appears 
outwardly, but also truly resolves within himself, "I wish to do that which 
the Church does."

[1]. S. Thom., in IV, D.6, q.1, a.3, q.2, ad 1um.
[2]. Pallavicini, Hist. of the Conc. of Trent. l.9, c.6.
[3]. Trent, Sess. VII, can. 11 on the Sacraments.


Conclusion:  Fr. Scott's position seems very close to forming the same "negative doubt" he previously stated was inadmissible ("I
wonder if the priest has the proper intention?  After all, we can no longer deduce it by external utterances.).  According to Billot, that concern is completely beside the
point. 

We are making an argument of principle: That there is a presumption of validity when valid minister, form, matter, and intent are present.

Context can only invalidate a rite if it is such as to be tantamount to forming a contrary intention (as was the case with the Anglicans).

No, because the intention of the minister is not supplied by the form of the sacrament, but by the subjective and internal intention of the minister:

The NOM cannot be presumed to be valid; quite the opposite.  There is doubt in regards to the priest’s ordination, as well as the form/intent, due to the imprecision of the words that have been changed in the canon AS WELL AS the offertory and communion.  

If one reduces the mass to the consecration only, they are mistakenly forgetting the other 2 essential parts of the mass.

The validity of the consecration is separate from the validity of the mass as a whole.  There can be a valid consecration but an invalid mass, just like a satanic mass can have a valid consecration but is obviously blasphemous.