Let me see if I understand this correctly:
- The argument starts with it being implied or stated that the absence of womens' ordination is an unstated tenet of the Church by the fact that it is cross-cultural and unchanged from the beginning...
- Another example of something cross-cultural (i.e. communing by hand) was brought up, then expanded to debate on crossing arms and/or using the pyx.
- The debate now, about whether the womens' ordination should remain undone, is being fought vicariously through the debate about communion.
I'm just wondering, in the last pages discussing this side-discussion (i.e. communing) I've seen the word "dogma" thrown in a few times (I'm sorry I don't remember by whom). Dogmas are unchangeable, whether stated or not, for they are eternal truths; as such, the Church restricts things considered dogmatic to a fairly small category, which includes such complex concepts as the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Christ's passion, death, and Resurrection, and the like. It certainly does not include such things as whether or not women can be ordained. Even if one were to state that the non-ordination of women is caused by an extention of a dogmatic principle, it still is not a dogma itself. As such, it is changeable, just as many other customs/Traditions/traditions/etc of the Church.
A few other examples of traditions/canonical statements that have gone by the wayside - the ordination of bishops without diocese (chorepiscopoi), which has been gotten around on a "technicality" but really has been disregarded, canonical requirements for the reception of certain heretical sect memebers, etc. Even if it's spelled out in a canon, unless it's put forth by the Church tradition in a very real and tangible statement (Ecumenical Synod, Endemousa Synod, statements of the Fathers which have gained universal acceptance, approved and accepted statements of laymen and hierarchs) as being required for our understanding of Faith, it's just not dogmatic and therefore it is changeable.