I am no theologian, but I do know that the doctrine of papal infallibility is not found anywhere in scripture, nor is it found in the record of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is only a man made myth, proclaimed by a church council a mere 136 years ago. I cannot be accorded any real weight because of its origin (with man, not God).
Popes are human beings - sinners who fall short of the glory and perfection of God as portrayed in the person of the Son, Jesus. No pope, living or deceased, is or was infallible. Merely stating that he is doesn't make it so.
Until Rome repudiates that unbiblical doctrine, I don't think most Anglicans will accept Rome's authority over them, period.
Just my opinion.
It is in the Bible, in the power of the keys, given to Peter, to loose and to bind. And Papal authority was clearly understood to exist back to the earliest times. Eusebius reflects on Pope Victor's near use of it against heretics in the 100's AD (Victor was talked out of it, much as Peter was talked out of Judaizing by Paul.)
Anyway, this is the nut of the difference. Anglican catholics can be as catholic as they can be, but the divide between them and being Catholic remains irreducibly theological. Papal infallibility IS in the Bible, right there at Matthew 18:16 (or is it 16:18?). Peter uses that authority given by Jesus visibly in the Acts of the Apostles. And it is history going back to the 100s.
Rome, for her part, certainly can pave the way for political union by granting all sorts of rights and privileges to the Anglican Rite. But the theological point still stands, and is perhaps unbridgeable.
Of course, even if Papal Infallibility were unscriptural and sticks in the craw of Anglicans, residing in a Church that ordains open homosexuals does not allow them to stand apart from Rome on PRINCIPLE, unless they exit Anglicanism as well. Since they don't, the principled argument against an unused doctrine that is but a potentiality (infallibility, today) as a reason to remain aloof from Rome, while remaining in an organization that consecrates sodomites to the episcopacy is, well, not principled. It is political and stubborn.
Besides, everyone knows that regardless of what the Pope says, infallibly or no, there is always the personal veto, which individuals exercise all the time in deciding what they will actually DO or not.
Well, we can certainly see where a lack of an infallible leader has gotten the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches.
Are you sure that you understand what infallibility means?
It doesn't mean that Popes are without sin, or not human beings, or anything of the sort. The state of being without sin is properly impeccability, not infallibility.
The human authors of Scripture wrote under inspiration, which is a higher gift than mere infallibility. Yet they, too were "human beings -- sinners who fell short of the glory of God".
The Bishop of Rome is deemed Infallible only in reference to doctrinal issues - Not with respect to personal preferences for strawberry or rhubarb pie or other humanly mundane issues.