"A, maybe you can explain this "the soul is not immortal" concept in a way my simple peasant mind can understand. :)"
I think I tried in 8292. As you will note, my first words were that the soul is indeed immortal. In summary, I think that the way different Orthodox writers talk about the immortality of the soul depends on what they want to emphasize.
If wanting to emphasize the fact that we are not and never will be of one essence with God, but are created beings who depend on him for our very existence at every moment, it is said that the soul is not immortal by nature.
If wanting to emphasize the fact that our souls have an eternal destiny for which we must prepare in this short life on earth, and that we must attend to "the one thing needful," then the immortality of the soul is emphasized.
I also think that all of this must be considered against the backdrop of pagan Greek philosophy, from which men like Kalomiros and Constantine Cavarnos (who wrote what is perhaps the best little book on this topic that I have read) want to distance themselves.
Most pagan Greek philosophy contained, as I understand, the idea of the eternal self-existence of matter. There was perhaps a "prime mover" of that matter, but there was not a God outside of matter, space, and time who had created all of these things at a moment in which time began for that creation. There were ideas of the soul being eternal and immortal, even if there were different theories about the changes that the "substance" of the soul had undergone during its eternal existence
Modern Orthodox writers are writing in an atmosphere dominated by conventional Western historiography and histories of Christian theological development. According to that conventional wisdom, as we have discussed many times on this thread, Catholicism is based in Aristotelean philosophy and Orthodoxy is based in Platonic philosophy.
Now the three of *us* know from our personal experiences of worship and prayer within the Orthodox Church that we are not engaging in trying to achieve union with an impersonal Platonic "The One," with our immortal souls, being pieces of the original One, returning to their source.
But given the fact that the patristic writings are filled with *terminology* from Greek philosophy (imagine that, since it is the same language with the same vocabulary to draw on), and that many early Christian writers had a deep respect for Plato and Socrates because they had, in a very real sense, radically changed Greek religion/philosophy from a crude polytheistic paganism into a well-tilled field ripe for planting Hebrew/Christian doctrine and concepts, Orthodoxy indeed has its work cut out for herself to explain how it is that we do *not* ultimately have our roots in pagan Greek philosophy or in some sort of shotgun marriage between a bowdlerized Hebrew religion and a dressed-up Platonism.
There was indeed this Gentile "protoevangelion" and it is the reason why some early Christian writers even referred to Plato as "the prophet of the Greeks," and speculated that he must have had contact with the writings of Moses and the prophets for him to have arrived at some of the positions that he did.
It is against this backdrop that I think that we must consider these expositions on the soul not being immortal by nature. It is in the service of distancing ourselves from any idea of the pagan concept of the eternal self-existence of the "substance" of the soul.
St. Gregory Palamas was writing in a very different atmosphere. When he says that the soul is "self-existent," it is in the context of saying that the soul will not die and decay as does the body, and is emphasizing our difference from the animals in that regard. He is emphasizing the well-known fact that man is a curious combination of physical matter in a way that is similar to animals and of spiritual essence in a way that is similar to the angels. I doubt that St. Gregory Palamas would have questioned the assertion that the soul was created at a moment in time by God, and was not eternally pre-existent and self-sufficient, nor would he have questioned the assertion that the soul's self-existence and immortality is a gift of God, and not something that exists outside of God's animating power, "in which we live, and move, and have our being" -- in short the Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the giver of life."
K, that's as simple as I can make how I see all of this. But I've got a lot of manure on my boots still from having been at the ranch all last week, so maybe I can do better once I get me some citifying back into my system.
I don't remember Kalomiros's exact words, but he is as prone to poor choices of words as anyone, and if he simply stated that the soul is not immortal, I would consider that to be misleading and incomplete.
Once I let go, it's like it never was there. A mental exercise that doesn't even seem to put a notch on what I feel inside. It is that incredible divide that always amazes me. But, I have to admit that A makes some good points, as always, even though he would have us believe that he is but a farmer with mud covered boots. And, of course, there is nothing simple about you Kolo either. But, you know how it is, the more complex the minds, the simpler the soul, and I mean that in a positive sense.
I would like to add a comment on A's mention of Aristotelian philosophy. If Aristotelian philosophy defines Latin Catholicism, then the soul would not be immortal if I understand it correctly. Aristotelian way of thinking is that the soul is here and now and as long you or something exists, the soul exists. Thus a match has a 'soul' in that it exists as a match and only for one purpose — to produce fire. Once a match is used, and is burnt, it is no longer a match; it ceases to exist as a match. Thus a human at the moment of death ceases to be that curious combination of animal and angelic.
Platonism, on the other hand, thought of essence as something that cannot be changed; we never cease to be human, even when we die. Orthodoxy specifically prohibits cremation for that purpose, and the universal idea of respecting even dead humans is a reflection of that thinking.
A strikes the bullseye when he says that the difference in our way of thinking is that we are not being returned to the impersonal One. Christianity differs from other religions in that we not only interact with God's energies but through Christ makes it possible for the ineffable God to become visible and close to us on our level; a filter or descrambler if you will between the uncreated and the created.
I would also agree that perhaps Kailomors sometimes uses unfortunate choices for his words, but the idea is that the a human being (a living soul as mentioned in Gen 2:7) dies, but it is clear that the soul, as the essence, is destined to spend eternity either with or without God. And in that, K says it simple and clear: "spiritual death is separation from God while "immortality" is everlasting life with God."