Does it have to do with the claim by some protoevangeliumistas that, in order for the Theotokos to remain a virgin, Christ had to be teleported out of her womb in a cloud of light rather than born through her birth canal? Because for him to pass through would void her virginity?
If that's what's going on here, then we can safely ignore the criticism.
Im not saying that. He did pass through the birth canal physically. Hopkos argument was that Christ broke the womb and opened it, but the hymnography says otherwise.
As for riling people up, saying borderline heretical things in order to work up peoples emotions and then deriving pleasure from it is a pet peave of mine. Paul is clear about needlessly scandelizinv people. Its a tactic Francis uses and for some reason it really irks me.
Maybe im being too critical. It is good to look past peoples faults and see the good, since we all have faults. Maybe im just overreacting to all the cultic praise that these modern theologians get. Im more of a Viniamin, Romanides guy myself 
1) I really think you ought to give the benefit of the doubt to priests, Popes, etc who are communicating to the public rather than putting them under your own suspicion. The fact is, they are speaking publicly with both their credentials and authority behind them and in so much as you understand that this kind of knowledge and institution is not egalitarian, it is your duty to be listen and be a student. As for saying undermining and motive doubting things like "tactic", "deriving pleasure from.." and even worse "borderline heretical", without any sources (!!!) and in the anonymity and limited medium of a forum your words ought be treated as empty rhetoric until you can provide more substantial meat to your point (which as far as I am concerned there is no point made at the moment).
2) I don't know the two theologins you listed but the search I did when I looked up their names shows that they were both born in the 20th century...hardly "unmodern"
3) It's going to be impossible to interpret either Scripture, Tradition,n Liturgy, Hyms, The Fathers etc without a living Tradition that exists in time. Orthodox Theologians are probably necessary for this, it's an important vocation...as I think you may have hinted you use the lens of two moderns to help interpret and contextualize things yourself...this is inevitable. If there are disagreements between two schools of thought or whatever, so be it but you shouldn't use the rhetoric you're using to talk about what is merely an intellectual / practical / methodological error and disagreement by painting things as an undermining and deliberate scandal (from Popes and priests who are authorized to talk no less). Talk like that is highly irresponsible, especially within the medium we are using. If you have an intellectual disagreement, just say it and leave it at that, no need to throw in weighty theological and moral terms to give your post more gravitas than it actually has.