Take this statement from Pope Shenouda, for example:
"We believe that the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in his Humanity without confusion, without change, without separation and we are not talking about two natures after the mysterious union of our Lord". ("Episkepsis" #442, 7/1/1989, p. 10).
That is not the extremism of Eutyches, but it is not Orthodox either.
Back when Peter used to talk to you, he'd often say that you were missing the substance of the faith in looking for the "identicality" of terms and expressions (or something along those lines...and I don't think "identicality" is a word, but I couldn't think of the word I wanted to use). This seems to be one example of that. In zeroing in on "we are not talking about two natures after the mysterious union of Our Lord", you ignore "perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity without confusion, without change, without separation". What is not Orthodox about this? But because two natures after the Incarnation are not confessed, you presume that "one nature" is not Orthodox, even if "one nature" is understood in the way in which Pope Shenouda explains it?
Dustin is right regarding the councils. EO and OO share the same faith. That does not necessarily demand that we recognise your post-Ephesian councils as ecumenical (and not just because it is apparent the EO don't know exactly how many of them are ecumenical). It is a difficult issue, and will take time to resolve, however it is resolved. No one is looking for a quick fix, I think, but yes, many are looking for, hoping and praying for, a solution.
I don't believe we share the same faith.
If you honestly believe this now, then, with all due respect, there are much more important things you need to be evaluating. Their Holinesses the Patriarch of Antioch and the Greek Patriarch of Antioch have an agreement (which can be read at the OrthodoxInfo site) regarding intercommunion and even concelebration in certain circumstances. Similar agreements (though not with concelebration, IIRC) are in place in Alexandria. I know of a few EO jurisdictions in America which would (and often do) commune OO, whether officially stated, or informally but regularly done. If you believe that we are not Orthodox, then your Orthodox hierarchs (or at least ones with which you are in ecclesiastical communion) are concelebrating with and/or communing non-Orthodox as Orthodox
. It's serious business, and I would be interested in knowing your view on this: is this kind of economia, and to this degree, justified in spite of our being heterodox (since you say we don't believe the same, we obviously are to be considered heterodox by those who believe as you do)? I'm not suggesting that you need to join one of these fringe old calendarist groups or anything, but if you really believe that OO and EO don't share the same faith, then your view on this is more consistent with those groups than it is with many of the bishops you are currently under/in communion with (regarding this issue, at any rate), and there is something problematic in that.
Christology is hard enough as it is, without having to deal with two Christologies that confess the same thing in different ways. I'm glad to see that you are beginning to research the Oriental Orthodox position. I hope that you will continue to do so (and thoroughly), and to invest a lot of time in reading our fathers, our liturgies, and our modern writers with an open mind and heart, and I trust you will learn much, whatever you conclude in the end.