Very occasionally I have the pleasure of a telephone call from the good and wise Father Zuhlsdorf, and he has just phoned from the Americas.
Apart from a brief frivolous discussion about Mac's foolish and blond desire for ordination to Exorcist, we spoke of the problem of Bishops in the documents of Vatican II. Before the Council, to be simple about it, priests and bishops where really the same thing, except Bishops had greater jurisdiction, we spoke about a priest being "consecrated" as a Bishop. The Council introduced the idea of the Bishop as a priest-plus, and someone was "ordained" a Bishop, in the same sense as a deacon is ordained a priest. Vatican II identified ordination as the laying on of hands rather than through the giving of instruments, or symbols of office.
One might argue that a Bishop has extra-sacramental powers but there is a welter of evidence that during the middle-ages, and earlier some simple priests ordained men to the minor orders and even to the diaconate and even to the priesthood, more discoveries have been made since the Council.
My understanding, which could be wrong! was that the Investiture Crisis at the beginning of the 2nd millennium, was about princes making priests bishops by investing them with the symbols of office and jurisdiction by the giving of a ring, miter, crosier, pectoral cross and enthronement. All of which, incidentally, were given to an abbess, who often had jurisdiction equal to any bishop (the mitre was generally armorial but sometimes actually carried before them). I suspect the fag end of this were lay commendatory bishops, who mainly collected diocesan revenues in pre-revolutionary France, but in some cases had limited jurisdiction.
So Mac could not be ordained a priest, but if she were invested with the symbols of office and given jurisdiction she would be a very fine Abbess.