So then the question is, how do you separate the intent from the act?  That is, "I do not intend to do what the Church does (provide the sacrament)...but I still do what the Church does (say the sacramental form with proper matter)." 

What is an example of a priest who does NOT intend to do what the Church does, but still does it?  I'm still not grasping the anathema of Alexander vs the very "low bar" of sacramental intent.

.
Someone who simulates a sacrament uses the right matter and form while interiorly withholding, refusing, or otherwise failing to intend to do what the Church does. 
.
There are few to no normal situations under which this would occur. But a prelate who is sleep-walking would definitely lack the requisite intention. Or, suppose a bishop was held at gunpoint to ordain a man (whom he was known to not want to ordain) . The bishop might interiorly and explicitly, in his mind, will to stimulate the sacrament. I think if I saw a sacrament administered under duress I would hold it doubtful. 
.
There is no reason to run around doubting sacramental intention. De Lugo and Cupertino have never suggested otherwise in their excellent posts here. 

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

.
The answer is no. You have not validly confected a sacrament under this description. 

There are few to no normal situations under which this would occur. But a prelate who is sleep-walking would definitely lack the requisite intention. Or, suppose a bishop was held at gunpoint to ordain a man (whom he was known to not want to ordain) . The bishop might interiorly and explicitly, in his mind, will to stimulate the sacrament. I think if I saw a sacrament administered under duress I would hold it doubtful. 

But these 2 examples have exterior manifestations, so they fail at explaining how a simple interior disposition (or lack thereof) works.

Reports arose that he had concelebrated the new Mass, and he denied them.  Shortly thereafter, video emerged of him concelebrating.  His response was that he feigned concelebrating (ie., deliberately withheld internal intent to do what the Church does).

To me, if we have to accept this invalidating reason (i.e. his word alone), this opens the door to utter chaos.


How many marriages can be annulled if one of the spouses simply has to say "I never intended to marry you 10 years ago."  BOOM, marriage invalid.  No investigation needs to (or can) happen.  Marriage is annulled immediately, based on lack of personal intention.  Yet...this is not historically or sacramentally true.

How many marriages can be annulled if one of the spouses simply has to say "I never intended to marry you 10 years ago."  BOOM, marriage invalid.  No investigation needs to (or can) happen.  Marriage is annulled immediately, based on lack of personal intention.  Yet...this is not historically or sacramentally true.

.
Such claims have been made, and historically/traditionally no annulment has followed, because it is extraordinarily difficult to prove that someone did not intend to do something that they did. 

To me, if we have to accept this invalidating reason (i.e. his word alone), this opens the door to utter chaos.


How many marriages can be annulled if one of the spouses simply has to say "I never intended to marry you 10 years ago."  BOOM, marriage invalid.  No investigation needs to (or can) happen.  Marriage is annulled immediately, based on lack of personal intention.  Yet...this is not historically or sacramentally true.

This fallacious concern has been refuted in this thread so many times (beginning on p.1, with the quote from Fr. Hunter’s manual, and several others thereafter), that it is hard to take your concern seriously.

Only the hysterically scrupulous would be concerned.

Correct in all respects.

One example of covertly withholding internal intention would be the sad case of Bishop Rifan (of Campos):

Reports arose that he had concelebrated the new Mass, and he denied them.  Shortly thereafter, video emerged of him concelebrating.  His response was that he feigned concelebrating (ie., deliberately withheld internal intent to do what the Church does).

Suppose he was the only celebrant, and that he did not violate any norms or rubrics. Are you saying that Mass would have been invalid? 

Suppose he was the only celebrant, and that he did not violate any norms or rubrics. Are you saying that Mass would have been invalid?

Yes, for while he would have manifested external intention, he would have withheld the interior intention (without which there is no sacrament).