No, theologians are NOT the Magisterium. Period. When you phrase it the way you do, you're pretending that a theological consensus among theologians is the equivalent of the Magisterium.
One is not obliged to accept the consensus of theologians the way that one is obliged to accept Magisterial teaching, so they are clearly not equivalent. Nevertheless, it is imprudent to take the consensus of theologians lightly, especially one held for almost the entire history of the Church. As traditional Catholics, we normally give a lot of weight to such a consensus. While it is not Tradition, it is tradition.
Too bad you've never been able to refute my argument that the factor of honor was never considered and rebutted by theologians, who consistently treated this as if it were any other simple authority-subject relationship.
Your argument has been refuted by pointing out that it rests on the assumption that corporal punishment is inherently degrading. You have never justified this assumption, nor are you likely to be able to since it is clearly contrary to Scripture.
[Heb 12: 6] For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. [7] Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? [8] But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons.You claim:
Your quote has to do with love and not honor. Indeed, corporal punishment is compatible with love, but not with honor. When you use violence against someone, it's an act of force and brutality, one that is not compatible with honor.
This quote identifies two qualities of corporal punishment. One, which you are admitting, is that it is a sign of love. The other, which you are ignoring, is that it is a sign of legitimate sonship. If you know anything at all about the historical context, you know that the legitimate son holds a position of honour while the bastard holds a position of dishonour. It is simply untrue to claim that this passage has nothing to do with honour. It is saying that the honoured position is the one accompanied by corporal punishment, while the dishonoured position is marked by its absence. It is not possible, in light of this passage, to claim that corporal punishment is not compatible with honour.
False. Honor owed by the authority to the subject are not a part of every other authority-subject relationship but is unique to the married state. So the question is whether honor precludes corporal punishment. This was never addressed by the theologians who considered the question of corporal punishment of wives by husbands. Consequently it's a fatal flaw in their argument to argue from the principles of any generic authority-subject relationship.
You are making an argument from silence. These are typically weak or fallacious. (This was the point I was making when I said that St. Thomas also never addressed the argument that water is not wet.)
You seem to think that the historical lack of rebuttal to your argument shows that it has no rebuttal. But that does not logically follow. It is just a possible that your argument is so obviously wrong that nobody ever made it or even thought that anyone would make it. I contend that this is, in fact, the case. It is so obvious to the traditional Catholic worldview that corporal punishment is compatible with honour that nobody even imagined someone claiming otherwise.
For example, a king holds a position of honour. It is, nevertheless, possible for a king to receive corporal punishment. This is what happened to Henry II of England after the murder of Thomas a Becket. Here is the Wikipedia description:
"The king performed a public act of penance on 12 July 1174 at Canterbury, when he publicly confessed his sins, and then allowed each bishop present, including Foliot, to give him five blows from a rod, then each of the 80 monks of Canterbury Cathedral gave the king three blows."