Sure.  Reproduced from the French periodical Sous La Banniere, a "Motu Proprio" of Pope Pius XI delegated extraordinary powers to then Titular Bishop of Saigon, Ngo-Dinh-Thuc.  It reads as follows -

Pius XI, Pope:
The significance or extent of these powers, identical with those conferred by the same Pope on the predecessor of Bishop Thuc 12 years earlier, Bishop d'Herbigny, S.J., were made explicit by the Pope himself, as quoted by Father Paul Lesourd in his book Le Jesuite Clandestin:

 "Orally, the Holy Father detailed first of all, all the powers which he was giving, including the choice of priests to consecrate and to confer on them the episcopacy without their having need of pontifical bulls, nor therefore to give their signatures engaging themselves to conform to such under oath.

 "Then, after having detailed at length verbally all the truly extraordinary powers, the Pope thus summed himself up very solemnly:

"In a word We grant you all the pontifical powers of the Pope himself, which are not by Divine Law incommunicable."

I have photocopies of both Moto Proprio(s) mentioned above.

It is interesting to note that these special pontifical facilities to ordain priests and consecrate bishops without explicit authorization from Rome were renewed by Pope Pius XII on December 8th, 1939.

So, it seems supplied jurisdiction is not needed because the power to consecrate is one of the powers of Orders.

.
The guiding principle is, "We distinguish but we do not separate." The words, "distinctly separate," do not follow this principle.
For example, this quote from Miaskiewicz implies you can have jurisdictional power without Orders as well as Orders without jurisdictional power. This introduces confusion instead of clarity!
.
Therefore, it would seem this quote from Miaskiewicz contains a mistake. Where it has "distinctly separate" it ought to have "distinguished." If those words are replaced, it would say:

For those who believe that cuм ex is still in force, then +Thuc, being suspect of deviating from the faith after 1938 (he was Novus Ordo off and on), lost his office before consecrating bishops. This makes all +Thuc consecration of bishops invalid, does it not?

Uhm, no.  You do realize that even non-Catholic bishops can validly consecrate, right?

That's the way pretty much everyone understands it, but cuм ex condemns with loss of office and banishment of all bishops (and cardinals, popes, kings etc.) who ever deviated from the faith; "...it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration....."

So per cuм ex, +Thuc, having been detected of deviating from the faith, lost his supposed appointment read: elevation of universal jurisdiction, a jurisdiction normally reserved only to the bishop of Rome.