Then I guess we are all going to hell.
Allowing yourself to be taken advantage of by the usurers is one thing; that doesn't qualify as a sin. Lending money at interest; that's the sin itself. That's the position
of Thomas Aquinas at least, and he defends it with his usual scholastic rigor.
Speaking for myself, I've gone my whole life without being usurious. It really isn't that hard.
I think it's pretty ironic that you are insinuating that I think we do given that I have spent an inordinate amount of time explaining to Protestants that we do not have the same OT as them. Of course you have no way of knowing that but that is why I find it personally ironic.
However, let's not pretend that differences are total between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. They are different, but they are not completely different, and I doubt that they are different on the point of usury.
I have no problem with the Masoretic text. After all, St. Jerome's Vulgate is based on it, and that is also something of a holy translation. I am speaking on the level of canon, not textual differences. The Jews rejected a whole bunch of books in our
OT, and we don't, like the Protestants, consider them an authority on that matter. And anyway, even the Jews don't allow usury among their own kind. Only for us gentiles.
You might also want to ask why the Masoretic text is taught in Hebrew at your OCA seminary St Vladimir's though since you seem to have so much of an issue with it
St. Vladimir's also employs Fr. Paul Tarazi, who was kicked out of Balamand for calling my patron Saint a "jackass," and who propagates Nestorian text-critical methods that debase God's word.
But again, I am not exactly anti-Masoretic text.