Individual Orthodox believers are in communion with Rome, as Rome allows them to recieve communion since they share the Catholic Faith, thus making them part of the Catholic Church. Whether they do so or not has no bearing on the situation from the Roman POV. It is sufficient that they actually receive the Eucharist from a valid priest since all valid Eucharistic celebrations are united by the one Host - Jesus Christ.
The Orthodox who are not in Communion with Rome are the Orthodox Bishops. Their situation is quite different from that of the Orthodox faithful. However, just because a Bishop of the Catholic Church chooses not to be in union with Rome, this does not necessarily impair the relations of the flock entrusted to his care to Rome, and it certainly implies nothing about the situation of individual believers who must make their own decisions. The English Catholics at the time of the Reformation were not "de-Catholicized" by the apostacy of their Bishops.
The EOC is considered part of the Catholic Church. This is why Rome does not name Bishops to the EOC dioceses, and why official diocesean and synodal acts of the EOC are recognized as canonically legitimate by Rome. The EOC situation is thus irregular, but not schismatic. Without schism, there is necessarily one Church.
This is seen quite clearly in the case of the Malabar Christians of India. Despite having only the most tenuous contact with Rome for over 1000 years and being under the Assyrian Patriarch who was similarly out of contact and seperated from Communion since the time of Mohammad and the end of the Church reunion achieved by Emperor Heraclius, they were quite happy to enter into communion with the Portuguese Catholics when they first arrived and to profess allegiance to Rome. Their entering into communion then made manifest what was implicit during the 1000 years previous with its absence of communication and living under the jurisdiction of a seperated Church of Assyria.
So the EOC (and non-Cahlcedonian and Assyrian) position is quite different than that of Christians who reject the Catholic faith and heirarchical and sacramental systems.
Which brings up the Incarnation. Which is more important, the theology of Apostolic Succession or the theology of the Incarnation? The non Chalcedonian churches do not have the theology of the Incarnation the same as the Chalacedonian churches do (which includes many Protestants).
Also, the Malabar Christians didn't have the best of luck with the Portuguese Jesuits at times. They were accused of being Nestorians, and many of their books were burned. Some have not united with the Roman Catholics to this day as a result.