Appointment of Bishops

Even consecrating bishops against the express will of the hierarchy (p. 136)

I’m interested in any example of bishop consecrating another bishop against the express will of the Pope. I only know of schismatics who have done this.

Saint Eusebius of Samosata travelled throughout the Eastern Churches laid waste by the Arians and consecrated and installed Catholic bishops (p. 136)

His wikipedia has him installing presbyters (priests) and deacons AND not against the will of the Pope.

That is neither Bishops nor papal defiance.

Eusebius of Samosata on Wikipedia

On his Catholic Encyclopedia page it has:

Disguised as a military officer, he visited the persecuted Churches of Syria, Phoenecia, and Palestine, exhorting the afflicted Catholics to remain faithful to their faith, ordaining orthodox priests where they were needed, and in many other ways assisting the Catholic bishops in the difficult exercise of their duties during these troublesome times.

On his journey from Thrace to Samosata he was instrumental in the appointment of numerous orthodox bishops

That doesn’t sound like consecrating bishops unilaterally

While he was taking part in the consecration of Bishop Maris, at the little town of Dolicha, near Samosata, an Arian woman struck him on the head

“taking part” sounds like a multi-party consecration, which is normal.

but is not intrinsically evil to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate, this we cannot say it is intrinsically evil for Lefebvre (p. 138)

It is not intrinsically evil to not receive communion in the Easter season, but it is still a mortal sin. The reason is the Church and the Pope can make grave laws beyond what is evil in of itself.

First Vatican Council (1870)

“We teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to and conferred upon the blessed Apostle Peter by Christ the Lord… Therefore, if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church militant, or that he received directly and immediately from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema.”

To consecrate a bishop against the will of the Pope is a schismatic crime, dogmatized by Vatican I, making anyone who does so not just a schismatic, but a heretic.

… the fact that the Pope of the time – Pope Liberius – had been pressured into signing a Semi-Arian Creed and caused great scandal to the faithful (p. 137)

I am not able to verify this.

Catholic Encyclopedia discusses disagreement on whether Pope Liberius signed this, and weighs in on its conclusion of “the letters saying this are forgeries”.

Catholic Encyclopedia on Pope Liberius

If he did sign something like this, it was under duress, so not accepted as his own will.

If he didn’t, that explains why

We don’t have a copy of his caving document
The emperor pressuring him, Constantius II, never boasted “Liberius has caved”
The people of Rome cheered and celebrated his return as an anti-Arian hero
Liberius never said, “I made a mistake, forgive me”. Just kept going stomping out Arianism.
The Eastern Orthodox celebrate him as Saint Liberius, for his anti-Arian zeal and sacrifice.

Bishop Grosseteste

So a great example to support Lefebvre would be

a Saint
hopefully also a bishop
directly disobeyed a personal command from the Pope
the Pope did not accept the protest

Here:

x Grosseteste isn’t a saint.
✓ is a bishop
✓ directly disobeyed a personal command from the Pope
x the Pope backed off

Maybe Grosseteste was wrong here. But the Pope didn’t excommunicate him and backed off on his demand.

This doesn’t help justify Lefebvre.

one man refused to do what a Pope asked and not elevate a bad man to the episcopacy (p. 143)

The Grosseteste case is about the appointment to thecanonery (monks) of the cathedral, not the episcopacy.