No, if ten cardinals, the Pope, and half a dozen metropolitan bishops laid their hands on a woman at once, in the middle of St Peter’s Basilica, with the use of Chrism that had touched Christ himself, Holy Orders would not and could not be conferred. (That is, the woman would not be able to confect the Eucharist nor perform any priestly functions: no indelible mark of orders would be upon her soul.)
Even if the Pope (in that case, an anti-pope) approved it, and said it was licit - it would still be invalid. Women are ontologically incapable of being ordained: no matter what authority would demand it, it would be impossible, unless the world is Occasionalist in its being, and God itself rewrote creation to make women male. That is, no matter who attempts to ordain a women - no matter if they are a bishop of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches - no ordination actually occurs, but a mere “simulation of the sacrament” (which is, incidentally, blasphemous), in a way analogous to a man who is not ordained attempting to confect the Eucharist - even if he stands behind a dedicated altar in St Peter’s Basilica with a valid host, and performs the rite perfectly, saying the words perfectly - the Eucharist never comes to be; it is still just bread and wine, that has not undergone transubstantiation. The same is unto women, who are ordained in what would otherwise be a valid ceremony: they are still just human beings, not priests, after the ceremony is finished, just as the bread and wine remain bread and wine if a non-ordained man would perform the rites over it.
The Deaconess is not an exception, as the Deaconess was not a complete parallel to the Deacon, and was not ordained - there’s a good article on this somewhere…
There’s a lot of verbiage up there, but the key phrase, the entire matter, is women are ontologically incapable of being ordained.