Cranmer was, I grant, a poor example. But he was hardly an example of the Orthodox discipline as to the episcopate because, he was an Oxford don, not a monk, upon being tapped by the king to be Abp.
Now as to the rest, why such hostility? The Orthodox have no desire to force you to change your system. Do as you wish. St. Photius the Great was appalled by it but he also knew that it fell outside his jurisdiction. If you really want to go down in flames with your system, have at it.
When he took his post, he became a cleric.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/thomas-cranmer.html
Thomas Cranmer entered the ministry for a simple reason: his father only had enough land to give his eldest son, so Thomas and his younger brother - as poor members of the gentry - joined the clergy. Cranmer was given a fellowship at Jesus College, Cambridge in 1510, which he lost when he married the daughter of a local tavern-keeper. She died in childbirth, at which point he was re-accepted by the college and devoted himself to study. He took holy orders in 1523
So Cranmer had already been married once prior to ordination. Orthodox Canon Law prohibits any subsequent marriage to clerics after their first, and prohibits those already ordained from marrying for a first or second time.
Cranmer was sent to Germany to learn more about the Lutheran movement, where he met Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran reformer whose ideology appealed to him. Osiander's niece also appealed to him, and Cranmer and the niece, Margaret, were married that year. Cranmer was becoming a Protestant… in the Kings Court! On March 30, 1533, he became Archbishop of Canterbury, and forced (for a time) to hide his married state.
So his second "marriage" was after ordination and after a previous marriage. Both acts are violations of Orthodox Canon Law. Further, his second marriage was prior to become Archbishop, so his later epsicopal orders have no bearing on this.
Again, you example is of a man who violated the laws of celibacy which still unite the East and West - no diagamists, and no marriages after ordination.
Now as to the rest, why such hostility?
Hostility? You are the one being hostile by attacking the Latin discipline as against nature and reality. I am pointing out that this language of yours and your stance is a heresy St. Jerome wrote against and which the Apostolic See condemned 1600 years ago. I'm sorry if you think that is hostility - I took it as pointing out the facts. So you then call me hostile? I think you are projecting your own feelings onto me.
St. Photius the Great was appalled by it but he also knew that it fell outside his jurisdiction.
St. Photios is another poor example for your arguments. Just as you were drawing the distinction that Bishops must be Monks, you bring up the infamous person of the layman Photios hurried into the Episcopal state to become Patriarch.
Of course, if he really believed it fell out of his jurisdiction, then why did he anathematize the Pope partially on those grounds?
If you really want to go down in flames with your system, have at it.
The Catholic Church continues to grow and prosper aroudn the world. Where is this "going down in flames" you keep referring to. Is this a fantasy of yours or something?