So you are saying that when Cardinal Mindszenski (I'm sure I butchered that spelling) was in prison, and he wished to nourish himself with the body and blood of Our Lord, so he procured from a guard some wine and a communion host, and said the words of consecration over them, he was in fact NOT consecrating the body and blood of Our Lord? The priest's intention is what matters, not the rite.
The good Cardinal, if he only used the words of consecration, violated canon 817 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which held sway then, no matter whether one accepts the 1983 Code or not).
"Can. 817. Nefas est, urgente etiam extrema necessitate, alteram materiam sine altera aut etiam utramque, extra Missae celebrationem, consecrare."
As for the validity/invalidity of such an action, it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt - either way. Saint Thomas argues that at least the Institution Narrative must also be said for validity, and others say the entire Canon must be said to make it valid. As I said, I cannot prove (once and for all) such an action would be invalid, but neither can anyone prove it would be valid.
This Sacrament is one with the Sacrifice in which it is framed, which is why priests do not just consecrate outside of Mass in order to bring viaticum to people, but they take Hosts which have been consecrated during Mass. This is also why, if the rite is framed heretically (i.e., the framing is not that of a Sacrifice), it is invalid.
Did you read about Cardinal M. doing this in some book of his? Did it say he only said the words of consecration? Even if he did, it still would not prove anything either way (other than his own objective guilt and the illicit nature of his action), but I was just curious.