As for boundaries and pushing devotions, as I think I wrote in the Rosary thread, the boundaries control what's done in church.
Devotion is free: at home you can do just about anything and venerate just about anyone. (Again essentially what Rome says.) One doesn't have to pray the Rosary even if one is RC but why not repeat prayers and commemorate things in the lives of Jesus and Mary both sides believe in?
That's been your consistent position for the entire time you have posted on the forum, and you do use your terms consistently and build positions consistently off those terms, which is highly commendable. I normally don't feel the need to engage you, since I already know we disagree, but due to the nature of the thread, the context, and the fact that there are many new posters here, I will step in to the fray respectfully, knowing full well that we have pretty much covered all of this before.
I disagree with your point though that there is some permissible dichotomy between one's parish life and one's personal prayer life, at least from an Orthodox perspective (if Rome says that about its communicants, fine). The potential to be out of sync is great.
Outside the Middle East, no intercommunion. No mixing of rites from different traditions, and the bishops believe it's not in their power to judge on the holiness of people outside their churches (with a few exceptions: Constantine was baptised by an Arian, St Isaac the Syrian was in the Assyrian Church not a Chalcedonian Orthodox one, and New Skete, 1960s former Greek Catholics who joined the OCA in 1980, has the metropolitan's blessing to venerate St Francis) so in Orthodoxy there's no liturgical commemoration of 'the other side's' saints. (All of which more or less mirrors Rome on these matters.)
I am not interested in really getting in to the nitty gritty on the specifics since we've "been there; done that," but I think some of the underlying assumptions are both interesting and controversial, and thus worthy of discussion. The idea that something is ok in the middle East but not here, or that the Church can't judge the holiness of people outside its communion (read any of the liturgical texts celebrating the feasts of the Ecumenical Councils, where people who are called saints by other churches are anathematized) is certainly an opinion that some have, but does not seem to be held in force outside of ecumenical (I am deliberately saying ecumenical as opposed to ecumenist) circles. The fact that you make recourse to New Skete as an example demonstrates this: the supporters of New Skete and what it is doing are few and far between, and their experiment has not been repeated. The context of New Skete says a lot as well; it's not just about venerating Francis and Claire, but extends to some rather idiosyncratic things like ripping apart liturgies, letting dogs walk around in Churches, denying or questioning the existence of demons, justifying breaking of fasts because "we work" (as if the monks in Egypt or Joe Layman in 2008 doesn't), etc. It's not my intention to create a laundry list of "why I don't like New Skete" but rather point out that their situation is a) novel and b) as a whole rather idiosyncratic, so using them as a justification for why it is ok to venerate Francis and Claire may not be the strongest argument.
To tie that in to the bigger picture, the more I think about it, and now that I am a priest, it's hard enough to live a basic Orthodox life for most people. So if we have people told that they must do X Y and Z at Church, but it's almost a free for all at home, and we cite examples of outliers as proof of this, we may be technically correct that such things happen, but ultimately I don't think it's for the best of someone's soul.
If there is some pastoral reason that someone coming over from heterodoxy has some particularly strong attachment to some devotion which is not intrinsically anti-Orthodox, that may be a pastoral sensitivity, but I would not say that that is on the same level as saying something is basically up to one's discretion since he is at home in private.
Finally I think most Orthodox don't have a 'spiritual father'; they have a father confessor for the sacrament of confession. 'Spiritual fatherhood'/eldership is a monastic thing much to do with obedience as practised in that state of life, which would be intrusive and cult-like outside a monastery or convent.
It may be a difference in terms; I don't think there is much difference between a spiritual father and a father confessor. I don't know of any monks that try to give their lay confessees over-stated cult like advice, or any priests that try to mimic this, although I hear there are some monasteries that do things like that (my advice to people is to ignore any monk or priest that starts seeming too interested in certain 'private' matters or wants you to get a blessing to mow the lawn). A spiritual father is a father of confession for most people, although I do agree with you that most Orthodox just go to confession like Catholics.
While I clearly disagree with your view, I will reiterate that I welcome your and others' takes on things as you represent real life Orthodox people's take on things. As such, it's fair game for discussion on a "forum."