Hope this helps:
For a sacrament to be valid the are three conditions for validity ...matter, form, intention.

For what constitutes a valid intention:

The Holy Office in a response of Jan 24, 1877 (DS 3126). The intention must be that of doing what the Church does, what Christ willed to be done...It follows that particular errors which the minister professes either privately or even publicly cannot stop the validity of baptism or any other sacrament.


A case to consider is that of the validity of Anglican orders, as taught in Apostolicae Curae
promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII.
He first discusses defects of form introduces by the changing of the rites of ordination among the Anglicans, then goes on to say this about intention:

33. With this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of "intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.

Um, as we all know, the outcome of the Donatist controversy covers a multitude of sins. Would it cover these as well? (Let us hope not!)

This is a very difficult problem to resolve.

It has even been proposed at the level of the new mass as 'not intending to do what the church has always done'. I know a number of priests who, because of the lack of intent, propose only attending a TLM celebrated by a priest who "intends to do what the church has always done". Otherwise, how can one ever be sure one is attending a valid Mass? It is perplexing.

Has Mr. X indeed been ordained, or no?

Excellent question. When you get a definite answer, Salieri, please email me the dope. Meanwhile, we are in the soup!

BTW... the gates of hell WILL NOT, but the church may become very small in the mean time, and perhaps, go underground for a while. Even if it exists in one person, the gates of hell still do not prevail.

ISTM that the economy of salvation ensures that even if a member of the clergy privately does not believe in what he is doing, or in his mind seeks to thwart the Church's intention, the graces contained in the sacraments are nevertheless safeguarded by Divine Protection so that the desire of the Faithful to receive those sacraments and their attendant graces cannot be thwarted by a wantonly wicked cleric who seeks in his heart to destroy the Church.

Take for example a priest who, in a crisis of Faith, suddenly thinks that the Real Presence is Great Bosh. He still offers the Mass, and uses both proper form and matter to confect the sacrament. Can we truly believe that all of the souls who receive communion from this priest are themselves in great spiritual peril simply because he privately does not believe in what he is doing?

Another example of this kind of economy: we are told, and must be assured, that even if a Pope proves heretical, the Holy Spirit safeguards the Church as a whole from the taint of heresy. The Pope is not the Church, any more than a cleric is the Blessed Sacrament.

In the final analysis I think we must take as a matter of Faith that the grace is sufficient, and unless the recipient of the sacrament intends to deceive or receive the sacraments invalidly, we must assume that validity attaches regardless the private desire to thwart it on the part of the sacred minister.

My problem with all of this is the catastrophic consequences: If this ordination is invalid then that man who assumes that he is a priest, even though the bishop who ordained his is a twit and willed not to ordain him, unbeknownst to himself, then every 'Mass' that this priest has 'celebrated' is a sham, all his absolutions are worthless, the only valid sacrament that he has performed are baptisms.

Frankly, I find it too frightening to even think about.

Perhaps it helps to clarify that the intention spoken of is not synonymous with purely psychological intention as we say it in everyday language. Acting in a particular way has an intention embodied in the act.
A good case to point which we regularly here is the idea that sexual acts outside of marriage are licit because of the love the participant feels. Thus the intention (psychological, or emotional if you will) is determinant of the moral nature of the act. But we know this is erroneous. To borrow from St John Paul, the marital act has an intentionality embodied in it, which expresses permanence and fidelity, which intentionality is contradicted or denied by the pyschological intentionality of the participant who says internally, I love you but I won't marry you.
Sorry if this is not being clear. The intentionality embodied by the act is not removed by a contrary psychological intention, in fact the sinfulness of the act is in part explained by the contradiction between the two intentions at play - the intention embodied in the act and the psychological intention of the actor.
Going back to AC, Leo is in a way saying that by using the rite, and the correct matter and form one is expressing an intentionality in harmony with what the Church intends, and only by manifesting in an external act some contrary action could a contrary intention be discerned - in the case of AC, the contrary intention was discerned precisely because of changes to the external rite.
It is important to note that even the acts of heretics - that is someone who knowingly, consentingly (if that is a word) rejects a truth of the faith - will still be marked with correct intentionality, because, in a way, the act itself embodies that intentionality in it, and the contrary poor pyschological intention of the actor does not vitiate this. Hece sacraments can be validly confected by heretics.

Not to be confused in all this are actual graces which may be attendant on the reception of the sacrament, or the reception of the graces of the sacrament by the one receiving the sacrament.
So fr a, devoid of all religious feeling, piety, a notorious sinner and heretic, says mass according to the rites and with valid matter. It is a true mass and graces flow therefrom. But poor faithful z, attending this Mass, although they will receive a valid eucharist, may be considerably dis-edified.
Happily, next day pious fr b comes to say Mass. Again, faithful z receives a valid eucharist, but in addition, there are enumerable actual graces available, as faithful z is lifted to the heights of contemplative prayer spurred on by pious fr b's devotion, religious attention to detail, and nicely chanted prayers.
Lastly, another person, unfaithful q, who also attends these masses and receives communion, because of the hardness of their heart, also receives graces because it is a valid sacrament, which graces are bound or unfree in some way in them because of their own lack of receptive opening to the graces of the sacraments on offer.
(Thankfully, unfaithful q was buttonholed by fr b on the way out, given some good catechesis and went to confession for the first time in forty years, after which the graces of previously received sacraments were, by the mercy of god restored and made operant. Together faithful z and q are now doing penance weekly for Fr A's soul, and who knows, it might work) ;-) Sorry, I once told stories to kids for a living. will try to get back on track.

Not being picky, but, where is 1128 backed up by historical documents (older catechisms) or other writings?

You can find the footnote here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P33.HTM

Chris, yes, the ordination would be valid in your scenario. In fact, substitute baptism and a Protestant who does it only because Christ said so, you have a clear example of intending what the church does without intending the intention.

No, to intend what the Church intends is more than sufficient for the valid celebration of the sacraments. To intend what the Church does Is the minimum requirement. AC is interesting because they have defective intention and form, but saying the intention is not to intend what the church does is often tricky. (I need to review this for my final exam... I think it goes beyond simply using the Catholic rite). BTW, at least my sacraments prof refers to the graces which make us holy as habitual sanctifying grace, and he reserves actual graces for those which are necessary for our tasks that accompany a sacrament (baptism, marriage, confirmation, holy orders, and confession). But, they only come later; theologian Matthias Scheeben says sacraments give the right to those graces. Actual graces of course also come and inspire us to something meritorious, which in turn lead to an increase in sanctifying grace. For that, the Mass example above is good.

Julie, my prof cited St. Thomas and the ecumenical councils, and yes, St. Thomas is exactly right.

By the way, this is the one problem of the dogma that sacraments work ex opere operato. We presume validity, but the repurcussions are severe if it is abused e.g. a renegade bishop or undermined by a private obstruction to the sacrament where the minister refuses to do what the church does.

Bonnie, thanks to you, David and Matthew for pointing the way in the right direction above. It's been a long time since I studied these things, and the meanings of "ex opere operato" and "ex opere operantis" were a bit fuzzy. I'm sure glad we can refer to the Angelic Doctor on things like this.

Matthew, I'm just curious--have you ever come across a situation in your studies where an argument of St. Thomas Aquinas has been satisfactorily proved to be incorrect by later developments?

FCB,

May I pick a nit? The consecration of a bishop is not a separate sacrament; there are 7 sacraments, since consecration is the fulfillment of Holy Orders.

I haven't read St. Thomas on the Immaculate Conception, so I can't comment there.

The problem with bishops (well, lets face it, there are a lot of problems with bishops) is that until Pius XII the Three Major Orders were considered those of Sub-Deacon, Deacon, & Priest. One was ordained to the Sub-Diaconate, to the Diaconate, to the Priesthood, and then Consecrated Bishop, receiving the fullness of Holy Orders.

Pius XII, in Sacramentum Ordinis, changed the Major Orders to: Deacon, Priest, & Bishop. One now speaks of Diaconate Ordinations, Priestly Ordination, and Episcopal Ordination.

Sorry, but "consecration" is not a "better" term. The Church herself, in her ritual books, prefers the term "ordination." Also, through history there has been a diversity of opinions on what was included in the sacrament of Holy Orders. Durandus of St.-Porçain thought that only priestly ordination was a sacrament (excluding both episcopacy and diaconate), while Robert Bellarmine held that ordination (or "consecration," if you prefer) to the episcopacy was a sacrament (contrary to Aquinas and others). To my knowledge, it is only at Vatican II that the Church teaches authoritatively on the issue.

To Chris, you're right, it is not a separate sacrament. But it is a sacrament, in the sense that someone ordained a bishop has received a sacrament (which is what Aquinas denied).

Liam: Exactly.