Let me try and address this question at the level it was asked on.
Buddha himself said we should go to elders with questions about Dharma. In every generation there are students who learn from elders, and then grow old and become elders themselves. This is how the "modern masters" come to be. Where did you think they came from?
Modern masters are the translators and the explainers who were students like you and me, who had teachers, and those teachers themselves had teachers - all the way back to the Buddha. What's wrong with this?
You don't think commentaries and detailed explanations are useless, do you? Guess what, some of them, like Visuddhimagga, were written 900 years after Buddha's parinirvana! Let's throw away commentaries then? Or do you think written commentaries are better than verbal commentaries? But back in the Buddha's times elders did not write down their explanations...
Or are you saying the role of the teacher is to just repeat exact words of Buddha from suttas, without trying to summarize the points, explain the meaning, and show how it applies in practice? Especially if the elder is an arahant, don't you think they can explain some details that Buddha explained but that were not captured in suttas?
You see that life has changed, don't you? Buddha-Dharma goes to societies and cultures that don't live like ancient Indians at all. People work in offices. There is internet. There is neuroscience. There is genetics and memetics. There is medicine. There are drugs. There is astronomy and space travel. There is psychology and psychiatry. Also, the social discourse has developed many subtleties that were not there. There are many more attachments these days and many more ways to get confused with logic and knowledge.
Despite these changes in life style, knowledge, and culture, the teaching is not drifting anywhere. It's not like in the last 1000 years it has drifted further than in the first 1000 years or even the first 200 years. The teaching is always the same, it is only that every generation of students when they become teachers explain it on the examples that you can see in your actual life.
In short, there is no "modernized" Buddhism vs. "original" Buddhism - there are just people who apply Buddhism in their lives today, and the stories they can tell from their experience. If you deny the real-life experience of the modern elders, then you should be consistent and deny everything except suttas. And maybe we should go to Mahasi Sayadaw, Goenka, Ajahn Chah, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, ven. Yuttadhammo, Dalai Lama etc. - and tell them we don't need them because they explain things in modern ways? I don't think Buddha would approve of that.