You're answering a question that hasn't been asked. Or you're debating a point that Ladislaus hasn't made.
Ladisalus (and others) are saying that there is no INTERNAL intention ALONE (without an external sign) that can invalidate.
You keep quoting passages which reference an EXTERNAL act or word, which can show invalidating.
These are 2 different questions/situations.
And for the entire thread, Ladislaus (and others) have been ONLY debating the INTERNAL issue, where NO EXPRESSION is made. So your quotes deal with an entirely different circuмstance.
We all understand that the lack of intention can render the sacrament invalid due to a change in the matter or form (externals). Pope Leo XIII made this clear when he discussed Anglican orders. You are battling windmills.
What I and others are saying is that, yes, if the minister has the intention internally NOT to do what the Church does and manifests that externally afterwards, we must deem that the sacrament was invalid. Short of this we *must* accept all sacraments as valid as long as the matter and form have not been changed.
Read again carefully:
“Defect of intention must be very rare, with the sole exception of marriage, in which diverse motives may operate to cause defect of real will. There is always an abstract possibility that a man or woman may merely simulate marriage consent. In spite of this, people do not generally worry about the validity of their marriages; the presumption is always that the internal mind corresponds to the words spoken. So it is, likewise, with all the sacraments; the presumption always is that the minister intends what he does.” (pp.491-492, no.567) --- Leeming, Bernard, S.J. Principles of Sacramental Theology. 1956.
“Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that unless the minister externally expresses that he did not intend to do what the Church does when he was performing a sacrament, then the intention expressed in the words he uttered in the sacrament suffices for the Church to presume validity.
“The minister of the sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is, and in the words which he utters the intention of the Church is expressed. This intention suffices for the perfection of the sacrament unless the contrary is externally expressed on the part of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament.” --- ST III, Q. 64, Art. 8, ad. 2.
“Consequently, as long as the matter and form are correct, the Church does not, as a rule, doubt the intention of the minister. No Catholic should doubt what the Church does not doubt.
"As a general rule there is no doubt about the intention of the minister of the sacraments provided the matter and the form are correctly posited. It is taken for granted that the minister has the intention of doing what the Church does." (p.ix) --- De Salvo, Rev. Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L. The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments. 1949.
“Therefore the Church holds, and till the contrary is proved wishes all to hold, that such due intention is never absent whensoever the minister seriously goes through the sacramental rite she has prescribed, using the matter and form which she uses.” (p.105) --- Brandi, Rev. S. M., S.J. and Smith, Sydney F., S.J. A Last Word on Anglican Ordinations.1897.
Topic: Was Lienart Really a Mason? (Read 18416 times)