I was under the impression that the OO only confess in one nature of Christ (fully God)
and not the two natures that EO confess (fully God and fully man)
because of the Council of Chalcedon?
"Two natures" in and of itself is not a problematic claim. We believe that Christ is fully God and fully man, and you will find "two natures" language used here and there. What you won't find is the peculiar formulation of the council's doctrinal definition: "one person in two natures". The reasons for that have been discussed ad nauseam on the forum, but very basically, that sort of language, as well as language that seems to depict the "natures" as actors
, seemed to be introducing a division in the "person", which is a little more like Nestorianism than Orthodoxy.
We never believed that Christ was only divine and not human, or only part human and wholly divine, or whatever. Any number of liturgical texts can be cited to confirm this.
I also read that the OO only recognize the first 4 ecumenical councils and not the 7 EO recognize?
We accept the three ecumenical councils: Nicaea (I), Constantinople (I), and Ephesus.
My spiritual father was telling me that he read recently (I don't know the source) that most OO now are confessing the two natures of Christ and also recognize the 7 councils.
Is this true? Why are we still in schism?
I don't know your spiritual father or what he was reading, so I can't really address that.
Technically, it is not true that we "now
are confessing the two natures of Christ and also recognize the 7 councils". As I said above, we have always confessed that Christ is fully God and fully man. If that's all he means by "now confessing the two natures", then it's wrong because it's not a recent change, it has always been the case. If he means that we have adopted the Chalcedonian language as our own, that hasn't happened even now. And we have not now accepted Chalcedon and those councils which your Church held after that.
What has happened is that the theological dialogue between our Churches has concluded that our faith is and has been the same, though expressed differently; that Chalcedon can be understood in an orthodox manner and that is how the EO understood/understand it; that the doctrinal statements of the other councils are similarly orthodox and not objectionable, etc. Furthermore, the dialogue has offered certain recommendations in terms of how to move forward toward the re-establishment of communion.
But a theological dialogue has no authority to impose its decisions on the Church, the Church has to accept them. AFAIK, all the OO Churches have accepted those conclusions and taken steps forward. At best, only three of the EO Churches have taken any similar level of action, though others have informally acted on some of the recommendations.
As for why we are still in schism, I don't have a comprehensive list of reasons.
Some of that is simply various manifestations of pride, which also contributed to the schism in the first place. There are many who, IMO, don't seem to understand that we could've been wrong about one matter, even for so long, without that meaning we were wrong about everything. So if *we* have always been right, *they* must have always been wrong. We don't see that attitude prevailing during the four and a half centuries of our shared history, but it sure took hold after that.
Some of it is due to how our Churches operate. Historically, the EO Churches seem to have acted in a more coordinated way than the OO Churches, which are spread out geographically, more diverse culturally, linguistically, etc., and have tended to manage their affairs more independently. In modern times, there is more coordination among us, but it's still not like it is among the EO, and there is more independence among the EO, but it's not quite at our level. On the EO side, I think it would not go over so well internally if several but not all of the autocephalous Churches entered into communion with us: the others would consider themselves forced either to join them in entering into communion with us or reject communion with us and with those EO who "left" (there are examples in your own history of internal discord over decisions taken by some that were opposed by others, even in the present day...I don't blame people on your side for being reticent to potentially rock the boat even more when you're trying to get it to stop rocking as much as it is). On the OO side, I think there's more of a likelihood that one Church could do X while remaining in communion with the others without requiring the others to take a stand for themselves, but from what I've gathered, there is a sort of unwritten agreement that we, too, will coordinate this rather than having several different efforts at various stages of progress (and this, too, is not without its own problems).
Last, but not least, some of it is due to real considerations about how to reconcile a belief that we have always held the same faith with various real life manifestations which would suggest the opposite. For instance, what to do with councils? Does one party have to sign on to what the other already signed on to, or does the other party have to be content to keep theirs while accepting that the other party is just fine without them? What to do with anathemas? What to do about certain saints? I think there are ways forward on these and similar questions and that these are not permanent obstacles, but the work that has to be done on these matters combined with all the other things above means that it's going to take time, and so the status quo--division--remains.