[Kolokotronis]

"Does it bother you that Eastern Catholics were allowed to do a rite, rather than the Eastern Orthodox, considering that the Eastern Catholics are like, Catholics and all, and JPII was like, you know, Catholic?"

All members of the canonical Orthodox Churches are Catholics, just not Roman Catholics and not in communion with the Pope. It is unfortunate that the term has come to be co-extensive with "Roman Catholic" in the popular mind. There has been an agreement of sorts that the Orthodox and the Romans will refrain from calling the Eastern European churches which look Orthodox but are in communion with Rome "Uniates" since the term is seen as offensive to those churches which wish to be considered sui juris and particular churches within The Church. I suspect this "Eastern Catholic" appellation comes from that decision. From my personal point of view, "Uniate" seems far more appropriate and truthful and the desire of these churches to be seen as sui juris, while being quite understandable, nevertheless is a rather disingenuous denial of their own rather sorry history. They are one of the major stumbling blocks in the way of closer relations between Rome and Orthodoxy in a way that the particular Churches of the Middle East and Orient, like the Melkites and the Maronites among others, simply aren't and likely never will be.

[Conservative til I die]

I suspect this "Eastern Catholic" appellation comes from that decision.

No, it's because they belong to the Eastern Rite, different to the rite that Roman Catholics (and the few other non-Roman Western Rite Catholics) belong to.

From my personal point of view, "Uniate" seems far more appropriate and truthful and the desire of these churches to be seen as sui juris, while being quite understandable, nevertheless is a rather disingenuous denial of their own rather sorry history.

Nothing but condescension and insults from the Orthodox.