Plenus Venter-

A few points:

1) I agree with your response: A covert contrary intention invalidates the sacrament;

2) If it is true that this matter regarding covert contrary intention is not directly a matter of dogma (agreed), neither is it mere theological opinion (i.e., a debate among theologians regarding a subject upon which the Church has not ruled).  Pope Alexander VIII has ruled on the matter, according to the citation I have posted;

3) The position between older and more modern theologians has not changed.  The citations provided only state that there were more who shared Catharinus's position then than there are today, not that it was ever the prevailing opinion.

Yes, dL, I agree.
It intrigues me that Ladislaus continually calls us, who submit to every word of Vatican I, "Old Catholics", because we do not agree with his exaggerated notion of Papal Infallibility. Yet he sees this condemnation "anathema sit" of Alexander VIII but argues against it. I am at a loss to understand that. Ladislaus?...

Au contraire: All theologians today hold that the performance off the prescribed rite render the presumption of validity morally certain.

Moral certitude is all you have ever had in the sacraments.

For example, you have always known that it was possible the priest at Mass feigned the sacrament (e.g., by deliberately omitting the essential form of the rite), but this has not disturbed you.  Nobody would take such a fear seriously, even though, technically, it remains possible.

Same thing with intention.

The point is:  the sacrament is considered valid.  Because intent is internal, we cannot know that a sacrament is not valid for certain. Your example that QvD responded to tells us that you deliberately had the wrong intention. Ie, you made it explicitly known.

Your example that QvD responded to tells us that you deliberately had the wrong intention. Ie, you made it explicitly known.

No.  We're speaking of a covert contrary intention (i.e., The defect is not exteriorly known).

You are right, de Lugo, but in fairness to Ladislaus let the following quote from Ott be noted:

"The mere external intention (intentio mere externa) which was regarded by many theologians of early Scholasticism (for example Robertus Pullus, Roland), later by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P. (+1553) and many theologians of the 17th and 18th Centuries, as adequate, and which is directed towards merely performing the external action with earnestness and in the proper circuмstances, while the inner religious significance is not taken into consideration, is insufficient."

Many theologians once held this view that Ladislaus articulates, but it is difficult to see how it can be held today...

Yes, I concede that M. Ladislaus shares the same condemned error.

I see M. Ladislaus has made a brief appearance to down thumb all the posts he can (he shows as being online right now, at the same time the down-thumbs appeared), but as yet seems unable to answer a simple question.

No problem: We have already provided a link above to one of his previous posts, in which he embraces the condemned position of Catharinus.

Not really. People will still receive other graces that accompany the invalid sacrament.

Agreed.

And according to l' Abbe Hunter:

"It is objected to this doctrine that it makes the validity of every Sacrament depend upon a purely internal fact, namely, the intention of the minister who may perform the outward acts with the interior intention of not acting as deputy of Christ. We admit the consequence, but deny that there is anything in it out of harmony with other parts of revealed doctrine; it is perfectly true that, without special revelation, no one can have absolute certainty that he has received a Sacrament or that he is in the state of grace (n. 639): but his assurance on the subject may approach so nearly to this absolute certainty as to make any misgiving on the subject foolish and vain; and it must always be remembered that God, who has bound Himself to give grace when the Sacraments are duly received, has nowhere limited His power, disabling Himself from giving grace apart from these holy rites. One, therefore, who acts in good faith may hope that no disaster will befall himself or those dear to him through the deceit of a wicked minister. (See n. 696.)"

If you say so.

PS: Someone else who is not M. Ladislaus just down-thumbed this post ().

I'm the guilty one. Not Ladislaus. Your posts deserve downvotes. 

No.  We're speaking of a covert contrary intention (i.e., The defect is not exteriorly known).

Don't we all agree that these sacraments are valid?  That we cannot know that they are invalid? And if we cannot know they are invalid, why bother going on and on about it?