My opinion (with is not worth very much) is that papal infallibility and supremacy is a seriously problematic issue for reunion, but that the other issues can be overcome more easily.
the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.
Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.
But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.
I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.
I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
Immaculate Conception, the messing up of the Dormition, and the weirdness with purgatory and communion under one species (which there's been all this flip-flopping on) is also a cause for work.
The Pope as I understood it didn't apologize for the Catholic Church, but rather for the actions of some
within the Latin Church in regard to the Fourth Crusade. And that's to Rome's credit, since horrendous actions have been taken by Orthodox leaders, such as the treachery by a Patriarch and Emperor towards the crusading army during the ill fated Third Crusade, not to mention the killings of thirty thousand Latins in Constantinople before the attack on the city.
As for the infallibility of the Pope, it is only in matters of dogma and has been used two times. One is the Immaculate Conception which was denied by some Catholic doctors of the Church, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, and accepted by others such as Saint Katherine of Sienna, and was accepted by certain Orthodox theologians and not by others. And as for the Dormition, according to Bishop Kallistos Ware it was only redefined by the Orthodox when the Catholics decided to make it dogma.
Not that we're wrong and the Catholics are right, heaven forbid. Only that it's best to take a positive and understanding view towards the Latin Church. After all those poor people have to contend with a structural Latin language that might be great for law and I guess for building empires, but not in theology since it puts boundaries around Church concepts when boundaries shouldn't exist. For example making purgatory a place instead of a state of existence. Semantics, it's all semantics, but look God wants it that way otherwise he wouldn't have destroyed the tower of Babel.
I think the Pope established himself as infallible in order fight Protestant concepts that were creeping into the Latin Church in regard to the position, (or non position) of the Virgin Mary. When an ignorant and uneducated Saint Bernadette said that the lady that spoke to her identified herself as the Immaculate Conception, it was taken as a sign by the Pope. In order to impose the dogma on the Church he had to declare himself infallible.
The Orthodox Synod at the time in Istanbul was quite upset, not because of the dogma though since it wasn't fully defined, but because the Pope had overstepped himself and that it could lead to dangerous consequences in the future. As for the Catholics, their position probably was: 'Hey what's the big deal, don't you see we have a problem with our liberal Cardinals?'
Anyway this is only my viewpoint, so take it as you will.