About Eastern Catholics

OK, so I don't actually have all that much literature behind this one (don't worry, I'm sure most of them will), but they came up in my Christian Liturgy class today when we were talking about the changes Sacrosanctum Concilium brought about (and since it's the 1st document from Vatican II, it obviously just led into the rest of Vatican II, which is obviously many years of material, not just 1 class).  Basically, Vatican II only affected the Roman Rite - aka, Roman Catholics, what I assume the majority of the people inclined to read my blog are.  But I've never really thought much about these Eastern Catholics - you know, the Mozarabic Rite (in Spain), the Byzantine Rite, etc.  They are super confusing to me.  They aren't Eastern Orthodox - they are in full communion with the Pope (the Bishop of Rome), recognizing His infallibility and such - they don't follow the Archbishop of Constantinople of anything like that.  BUT did you know that, since they aren't Roman Rite, Vatican II doesn't apply to them?  It's something I had never thought about.  How can they think so much of Rome but not be Roman?  How can they have such different theologies and terminologies from us Roman Catholics, but still be in full communion with the Catholic Church?  They can receive the Eucharist from us, we can receive it from them, but we're held to different standards?  How can they be so independent with it being okay to the Roman Church - how are they really Catholic?  It's so weird to me!

Take, for example, the way they perform the Sacraments of Initiation (o the sacraments - something that might just be the topic of my next blog/rant).  They do them the way the earliest Christians did - Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist - in that order, mind you.  First you were bathed in water, than anointed with chrysm, and THEN you could receive your 1st Communion.  And the Eastern Catholics (and yes, I might well be generalizing here, so forgive me) do this with INFANTS.  What?  Sure, we baptize infants, with our parents and God-parents speaking for us, but that's just not the same as receiving the Eucharist, right?  They can't even say "Amen" and actually proclaim that the Body/Blood of Christ is true - their parents say it for them on their behalf!  It just has some more implications than baptism does... at least it sure seems to on the surface (not that sacraments are to be taken on their surface level, but still).  Now, Roman Catholics did it in this order (though not at that age - we like people to be super aware of what's happening to them - we would push back 1st Communion until people were in their 20s a lot in the late 1800s) before Pope Pius X.  The laity wasn't receiving the Eucharist more than once a year at Easter, and he knew it was an important part of their participation, so he said people should receive once they hit the age of reason (aka, about 7 years old), when they can discern between the literal and the abstract - so our order of initiation sacraments was then changed to what it is now.  It just seems weird to me that this was so important for the Roman Catholics and not for all the other Catholics...

...And then what about Confirmation?  Why do we leave it until last now?  Does that make sense?  Though does it make more sense in the Eastern tradition, where babies are confirmed?  In the US, we can't decide whether it makes more sense for kids to make Confirmation in 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th grade - but all of those are significantly different from an infant.  What makes sense?  Won't God's grace be there no matter when we do it?  Why is it okay for Eastern Christians to be so different from us, but yet be in full communion with the Roman Church?  What in the world?

Welcome to my confusion!