Has this "School of Catharinus" ever been mentioned before here on CathInfo? I don't recall that it ever has. You seem to be quite familiar with it. I've never heard of it. It's very strange that you would ask if I belong to it.

That the Council was only concerned with protestants is the argument of the school of Catharinus.

The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (1949) - Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L., pp.60-63:

"The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (1949) - Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L., pp.60-63:
These decrees of the Council were interpreted as meaning thatthe intention of doing what the Church does is the intention ofacting seriously, and that this is lacking only when the priest is known to be acting in a jocose manner. In the opinion of themembers of the school of external intention the Council taught that the only requirement in the minister was that he appear to beacting in a serious manner. The intention of acting in a jocose manner affects the validity of the sacrament only when this is apparent to the recipients: 

In regard to the jocose absolution given by the priest, they maintained that these words of the Council can be understood only in reference to lack of serious intent which was externally manifested. Otherwise the penitent could never be aware of thejocose performance. It did not occur to them that the sacrament might also be rendered invalid if the jocose intention of the priestwould not be noticed, since it might easily happen that a piouspenitent would not take note of such behavior on the part of thepriest.

From the statements of various members of the school ofCatharinus it can be gathered that the Council teaches that a contrary internal intention does not harm the validity of the sacraments in the least. According to them the Council wasconcerned only with the Protestants who had declared that thepenitent was truly absolved even if the priest absolved jokingly.

The doctrine of external intention is demonstrated by severalexamples; the judge who would pass a sentence while joking and drinking would not be taken seriously, since he shows by hisactions that he is not acting in a serious manner. But if he wouldobserve all the procedures of law and seriously and freely pass asentence with a grave voice and countenance, the judgment wouldbe valid, even if the judge mentally did not intend to absolve theguilty party or impose a fine. Thus, in the same way the sacraments which are apparently confected in a serious manner arereally valid. 

It is true that the sentence of such a judge would be considered valid, since it is presumed that his judgment corresponded withhis apparently serious actions. But in se the judgment is not valid in the internal forum. In the event that the true intention of thejudge came to light, the state might declare that the judgmentstands. The state has the power to do this for the common good. 

But in the case of the sacraments we have no assurance from Christ that He will render those sacraments valid which appear to be such by the outward appearance of sincerity in the ministerwho lacks a true internal intention."

Oh, so now I'm not a member of the School of Catharinus, and you're going to properly educate me? No thanks. 

... Where internal intention is lacking would be in situations where 1) a priest is not of sound mind, 2) a priest doing something in jest, 3) a priest doing something to practice / rehearse the Rite ... all of which can be discerned from the external forum.  But if a priest shows up for the 8:00 AM Mass scheduled at a Catholic church and peforms the Rite that's intended to be the Mass, he could sit there with all his might, gritting his teeth "intending" to do the exact opposite of what the Church does, but it would make no difference, and his Mass would be valid.

Like Pope Alexander VIII?

Or the manuals of Tanqueray, Hunter, Pohle, and DeSalvo, which reiterate and expound upon this condemnation?

Actually, what I said was "to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus."

Do you also belong to the condemned School of Catharinus with M. Ladislaus (and Meg, Stubborn, and Pax Vobis)?

I note your pathetic indifference to doctrinal error.

Has this "School of Catharinus" ever been mentioned before here on CathInfo? I don't recall that it ever has. You seem to be quite familiar with it. I've never heard of it. It's very strange that you state that I (and others here) belong to it.