Whithout getting into the details of exactly what he was and wasn't, it is clear that he was fundamentally a rationalist, who believed that God could only be approached intellectually.
The fact that heyschasm was so alien to his thinking says to me that the problems with the Roman Church started a long time ago, well before V2.
Anyway, I just feel as though the whole episode was a good symbolic example of the differences between East and West.
This is a huge problem I think with the Calvinist/Reformed Churches, one they aren't even aware of, more so than with the RC Church. The RC Church is more scholastic and legalistic than the OC Church, and Orthodoxy is more mystical, as Palamism shows. But if you want to see rationalist materialism in action you would look to the Reformed more.
On one hand, they categorically label many Orthodox/Catholic teachings as "superstition", and then when they come to those teachings in the Bible, they either draw a circle around them and call them exceptions or else interpret them in a metaphorical way.
A simple example: John's gospel records an angel intermittently stirring the pool of Siloam where handicapped would gather to wait for the waters to stir and for them to get healed. In Orthodoxy and Catholicism, holy water is used, and there are traditions of regional holy, healing springs in Catholic and Orthodox countries. But in the Reformed mentality, these kinds of phenomena are all inconceivable, so they draw an exception around the pool of Siloam, because it's in the Bible. But even in that case there are some skeptical Reformed who claim that the story of the pool of Siloam isn't "really" in the Bible, but was a later insertion.
I think it's more reasonable to be consistent- either the beliefs of early Christians in the pool angel were wrong, or the beliefs were right and God could still use waters to heal people. Don't you agree?