Modern Shia scholars=kuffar?

  قال المامقاني في تنقيح المقال ج1 ص334 : قد نبهنا غير مرة على أن رمي القدماء سيما القميين منهم ، الرجل بالغلو لا يعتنى به ، لإن الاعتقاد بجملة مما هو الآن من ضروريات المذهب ، كان معدوداً عندهم من الغلو ، ألا ترى عدهم نفي السهو عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله والأئمة عليهم السلام غلواً ، مع أن من لم ينفي السهو عنهم اليوم لا يعد مؤمناً ، ولقد أجاد الفاضل الحائري حيث قال : رمي القميين بالغلو وإخراجهم من قم لا يدل على ضعف أصلاً ، فإن أجل علمائنا وأوثقهم غالٍ على زعمهم ، ولو وجدوه في قم لأخرجوه منها لا محالة

Allama Mamqani wrote in Tanqihul Maqal (Volume 1, Page 334): We have warned more than once that an accusation from the classical scholars, especially of the ones from Qum, of a man (hadith narrator) being ghali should not be taken into consideration. This is because overall what is considered among the fundamentals of the religion these days was considered ghulu by them. Do not you see that they counted denial of the belief that the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) can forget as ghulu, even though one who does not deny that they (as) may forget would not be considered a momin (believer) these days. And Ayatullah Fadhil al Haeri excellently put it, where he said: "Accusation by the classical scholars of Qum, of hadith narrators being ghali and their exiling them from Qum (on charges of ghulu) does not prove in principle their da'f (weakness/unreliability). For indeed, most of our scholars and their most trustworthy ones would have been considered ghali by them, and if they had found them in Qum then they would have definitely exiled them from it inevitably."

إحقاق الحق - تأليف العلامة الحاج ميرزا موسى الأحقافي الأسكوئي- الصفحة 173

  

Ihqaqul Haq by Allama Musa al Ihqafi al Iskoi, Page 173

السيد علي بحر العلوم في كتاب "البرهان القاطع" في المجلد الثاني منه في صفحة (435) في آخر الصفحة قال: بكفر من يعتقد أن الأئمة يخلقون ويرزقون ويحيون ويميتون بإذن الله ومداده ومشيته، (والحال) أن في زمامننا هذا من ضروريات مذهب الأمامية، وقدرتهم على كل شيء بإذن الله ومداده ومشيته، ولم يكفه رحمه الله- هذا حتى قال: بكفر قائله وكونه من الضروري

Syed Ali Bahrul Uloom wrote in his book "Al Burhan al Qati' (The definitive proof)", in its second volume's page 435 at the end of the page that "one who believes that the Imams (as) do takhleeq (creation of the creatures), provide rizq, give and take life by the permission of Allah (swt) and His help and will is a kafir"; while presently in our age it is among the fundamental beliefs of the Imami (Shia Ithna Ash'ari) religion to have belief on their power over everything by the permission of Allah (swt) and His help and will.

And he (Syed Bahrul Uloom) did not just stop at this, he even said that "one who advocates it or deems it among the fundamentals of the religion is a kafir." 
 

وقال العلامة المامقاني في «تنقيح المقال» (ج3/ص 230) ضمن ترجمه «المعلَّى بن خُنَيْس»: «إن ما يُعدّ اليوم من ضروريات المذهب في أوصاف الأئمَّة عليهم السلام كان القول به معدوداً في العهد السابق من الغُلوِّ والارتفاع، ويُطعن بالقول به أوثق الرجال ويُرمون بالغلوّ

And Allama Mamqani wrote in his book Tanqihul Maqal (Volume 3, Page 230) in the biography of Mu'alla b. Khunais: "Indeed what is counted presently among the fundamentals of religion with regards to the characteristics of the Imams (as), professing by it was regarded as ghulu and elevation (of the status of the Imams) , and even highly trustworthy men would be slandered and cast aside for ghulu due to professing by it."

وقال ذيل ترجمته لـ«محمد بن الفرات» (ص170) ما حاصله أن «الكشي» روى في ترجمته لـ«محمد بن الفرات» حديثين أظن أن قصده من روايتهما الاستدلال على غلوه، هذا مع أنه ليس في الحديثين ما يدل على الغلو لأن مضمونهما يُعدُّ اليومَ من ضروريات المذهب

And  he (Allama Mamqani) wrote (in Tanqihul Maqal, a major shia rijal book, Page 170) under the biography of Muhammad b. al Furat: "The point is that Shaikh al Kashi reported (in his book Rijal al Kashi) under the biography of Muhammad b. al Furat two ahadith, I (i.e. Allama Mamqani) think that his (Shaikh al Kashi) intention was to prove Muhammad b. al Furat's ghulu through those two narrations, despite that there was nothing in those ahadith which evidences upon ghulu because their content is counted among the fundamentals of religion these days."

وقال ذيل ترجمته لـ «محمد بن سنان» (ج3/ص125): «وقد بينّا مراراً عديدة أنه لا وثوق لنا برميهم رجلاً بالغلوّ، لأن ما هو الآن من الضروري عند الشيعة في مراتب الأئمَّة -عَليهِمُ السَّلام- كان يومئذ غلواً، حتى أن مثل الصدوق (ره) عد نفي السهو عنهم (ع) غلواً مع أن نفي السهو عنهم اليوم من ضروريات مذهبنا

And he wrote under the biography of Muhammad b. Sinan (Tanqihul Maqal, Volume 3, Page 125): "And we have explained many times that we can not trust their (classical scholars) decision of casting aside a man (hadith narrator) due to ghulu, because what is now considered among a necessity of religion according to the Shias with regards to the ranks of the Imams (as), it was in those days ghulu, such that Shaikh Sadooq (ra) listed the belief that the Ma'soomeen (as) do not forget as ghulu although at present this belief is among the fundamentals of our religion."  

قال المامقاني في كتابه ( تنقيح المقال ) 6 / 340 : لكن قول ابن الغضائري يوهم قبول روايته تارة ، ولا يبعد أنّهم كانوا يقبلون رواياته الخالية من الغلوّ ويتركون ما كان فيه غلوّ. وحيث إنّ الغلوّ عند القدماء ينسب إلى الرجل بأدنى شيء ، بل أكثر ما نعتقده الآن في أهل البيت عليهم السلام كانوا يومئذ يسمّونه غلوّاً

Allama Mamqani wrote in his book Tanqihul Maqal (Volume 6, Page 340): "But the saying of ibn al Gadairi eludes to the occasional acceptance of his narrations, and it is not unlikely that they would accept his narrations which were void of ghulu while abandoning the one which had ghulu.

Since indeed, in the times of the classical scholars ghulu would be attributed to the man (hadith narrator) for a minute issue, in fact most of what we believe now about the ahlulbayt (as) would be labeled ghulu in those days." 

طرائف المقال - السيد علي البروجردي - ج ٢ - الصفحة ٣٥٦

Taraiful Maqal by Ayatullah Burujerdi, Volume 2, Page 356

وبالجملة الظاهر أن القدماء كانوا مختلفين في المسائل الأصولية، فربما كان
شئ عند بعضهم فاسدا أو كفرا أو غلوا، وعند آخرين عدمه بل مما يجب الاعتقاد
به، فينبغي التأمل في جرحهم بأمثال الأمور المذكورة

And the bottom line is that it is apparent that the beliefs of the classical scholars were different, so sometimes something according to them would be invalid/corrupt, kufr (disbelief) or ghulu, while according to the latter scholars it would not be so, in fact it would be regarded obligatory to believe in it. Therefore it is required to think over their jarh (attacking/weakening of hadith narrator by rijal scholars) due to the issues such as those mentioned.