I apologize if I was perhaps not clear enough. I appreciate your apparent willingness to research the Mass, but you probably ought to be framing these statements as questions. The intentions of the Mass are not synonymous with the intent of the priest. The proper intention to confect the Eucharist is ensured by the words that precede the consecration (“so that they may become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ,”). If the Epiclesis, in which, by means of particular invocations, the Church implores the power of the Holy Spirit that the gifts offered by human hands be consecrated, that is, become Christ’s Body and Blood, and that the spotless Victim to be received in Communion be for the salvation of those who will partake of it, is not invoked no Mass takes place.
Peace be with you
The problem is not simply that you were not clear enough, though that was a problem, but that you clearly said it was patently false that “the validity of the eucharist depends on the intention of the priest during the consecration”. What ensures proper intent is another issue.
And while proper intention to confect the Eucharist is normally held as expressed by the words of consecration, yet that cannot fully assure it, therefore there is the warning against intent as in pretense, which can have the correct form in words, but in pretense, thus invalidating the sacrament.
And this is also true in sacraments as baptism, in which one can have proper matter, proper form, yet improper intent, and the proper words do not assure the minister intends to do as the church does.