While I do not support Ibranyi in most things, this is the most thorough treatment of the subject that I've found.

http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/docuмents/books/rjmi/br45_ministers_intention.pdf

Thesis II : A merely external intention in the sense of Catharinus is not sufficient for the validity of a Sacrament.

This proposition may be technically qualified as communis.

[...]

The question at issue may be briefly formulated thus: Does a minister who has the intention of performing the external rite, but withholds his interior assent from the mind of the Church, validly confer a Sacrament?

Catharinus and his followers answer this question affirmatively.

a) Though their opinion has never been directly and formally condemned, it runs counter to a number of conciliary and papal decisions.

Innocent III demanded of the Waldenses that they subscribe to a profession of faith containing these words in regard to the Holy Mass: "For which celebration three things are necessary, as we believe, namely, a certain person, i. e. the priest, ... those solemn words [of institution], ... and the honest intention of the one who pronounces them." Can he who interiorly repudiates what he externally does, be said to have an "honest intention"? Note, too, that the Pope mentions the "fidelis intentio" as something independent of and separable from the act of uttering the words of consecration. This last-mentioned point is brought out more clearly in the following question, addressed to certain suspected Wiclifites and Hussites by command of Martin V: "Does he believe that a bad priest, employing the proper matter and form, and having the intention of doing what the Church does, truly consecrates, truly absolves, truly baptizes, truly confers the other Sacraments?" He who employs the proper matter and form, manifestly has the external intention postulated by Catharinus and means to perform the external rite in the prescribed way. But this is not sufficient, or else the Pope would not add: "and having the intention of doing what the Church does." Eugene IV in his famous Decretum pro Armenis (1439), besides the putting together of matter and form (in which the intentio mere externa of Catharinus is sufficiently guaranteed), expressly demands the intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia as a distinct conditio sine qua non of validity. Now this intention, in addition to the external performance of the sacramental rite, coincides with the internal intention which we defend. It is evidently this interior intention that the Council of Trent means when it commands the minister of a Sacrament to do what the Church does. A minister who, while carefully observing the prescribed rite, would withhold interior assent to the mind of the Church, could have no other intention than to play the hypocrite. The correctness of this interpretation may be judged from the Council's declaration as to the right intention of confessors: "... The penitent ought not so to confide in his own personal faith as to think that even though there be ... no intention on the part of the priest of acting seriously and absolving truly he is nevertheless ... absolved, ... nor would he be otherwise than most careless of his own salvation who, knowing that a priest absolved him in jest, should not carefully seek for another who would act in earnest." In this passage the Holy Synod mentions two separate and distinct intentions: that of "acting seriously" and that of "absolving truly." These two intentions are either substantially identical or they are separate and distinct. If they are identical, the second phrase is merely an explanation of the first, and the intention of acting seriously coincides with that of absolving truly, which latter is evidently an interior intention. If they are not identical, then the intention of acting seriously (which is precisely Catharinus intentio mere externa), is not sufficient for valid absolution, because there is further required the intention of absolving truly. In either case the merely external intention is insufficient.

The opinion of Catharinus sustained a severe blow by the condemnation pronounced by Alexander VIII (1690) against the proposition that "Baptism is valid if conferred by a minister who observes the whole external rite and form of the Sacrament, but interiorly in his heart says: I do not intend to do what the Church does." This proposition was extracted from the writings of the Belgian theologian Farvacques, who was an ardent champion of the intentio mere externa, and hence it is perhaps not too much to say that Catharinus theory stands condemned.


b) The arguments alleged in favor of the sufficiency of a merely external intention are inconclusive.

The laudable desire manifested by our opponents to safeguard the objective efficacy of the Sacraments against the wiles of unworthy men and to give the faithful as great a certainty as possible of receiving the sacramental graces, must not lead us to overlook the necessity of an interior intention. Two elements, the one objective, the other subjective, enter into the composition of every Sacrament: the external rite and the interior intention. No Sacrament is complete without them. Nor is it safe to extol the former to the prejudice of the latter. It is not pertinent to compare the external rite to a fire which, laid to dry wood, at once kindles it, even when there is no intention of arson on the part of him who brings about the contact. On the other hand, Divine Providence has seen fit to entrust the administration of the Sacraments to human beings. We must therefore be satisfied with such moral certitude as can generally be had.

After this Ibranyi guy, here a serious Catholic thelogian:

Part of my post - There must be some details related to that Holy Office condemnation that are missing.
.
Did you miss this part of my post?  Or do you just like to argue instead of having a rational discussion?
.
I don't think it's wise to read one condemnation (i.e. a few sentences) and then say, "Welp, that's that.  No ifs, ands or buts."  We have to have that take-it-or-leave-it attitude with dogmas, but not with other areas of the Church.  Why was the condemnation enacted?  What were the problems going on?  Context matters.