It is fairly common, in my experience, for Protestants to be incorrect on this topic.  I have often seen them teach that a wife should obey her husband even if commanded by him to sin.  So I find it best to avoid Protestant teaching on the wife's obedience.  If one does listen to it, one needs to be familiar with traditional Catholic teaching in order to recognize any errors one comes across.

Here are some passages outlining Catholic teaching:

26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."[29]

27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .

(from Casti Connubii - https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html )

11. Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For "the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church. . . Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things."(18)

(from Arcanum Divinae - http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html )


I encourage everyone to read both of the encyclicals completely, not just these passages.  These are far better sources for learning the truth about marriage than "Pastor" Dowell.  

It is fairly common, in my experience, for Protestants to be incorrect on this topic. I have often seen them teach that a wife should obey her husband even if commanded by him to sin.  

That doesn't apply to what the man in this video said. He never said wives must obey their husbands when they're commanded to sin.

Once again, you are guilty of conjuring up falsities to divert attention away from the true points being made. It's fear mongering, too.

You're very sneaky.

Black Hebrew Israelite minister.

Conflation fallacy.

"Pastor" Dowell is a "Hebrew Israelite" who is a black man. There's a difference. "Black Hebrews" are a different religious group who reject Jesus Christ. They think they're the "true Jєωs".

Judaizing at its finest.

The man abrasively criticizes the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan - the Jєωs.

They're Jєωs who put on a "Christian" veil to give that veneer that they're a sect of Christianity. Big on Old Testament practices. They celebrate the Jєωιѕн holidays and call the Christian holidays "pagan".

Ad hominem fallacy. The impetus of the aforementioned "Pastor" Dowell videos is to warn men about predatory or flaky women "divorcing" them as a means to steal the men's life's work by getting prenups, and to avoid a state marriage license. The posted videos have nothing to do with the false teachings of  "Hebrew Israelites" on matters of exegesis, the Church and all matters of the Faith.

I am genuinely beyond confounded how the guy whose every third post is something on the Jєωs à la this bloke near Adolf Hitler finds what is essentially Judaism's version of the Nation of Islam, complete with its own Louis Farrakhan simulacrum.

This comment makes no sense. It's incoherent, and you don't understand the correct definition of "simulacrum", a word that you've seen me use which inspired you to use it, but you used it incorrectly. Learn the meaning of words before you try to sound like an intellectual on the internet.

I know it's hard for an indoctrinated millennial such as yourself from a public school fool system to think logically and critically, but you need to put more effort into it.

And stop LARP-ing.

All you need to do, Croix, is abandon this Pastor Dowell character and look for actual Catholic advice on relationships, marriage, etc.

Croix, you seem obsessed, brah.  You've started about a dozen threads on women lately.

Here are some passages outlining Catholic teaching from Casti Connubii

With all due respect to the Holy Father, I do have a bit of a problem with this passage:

nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife

While this principle is technically correct, there's a problem in its practical application.  Women could apply this litmus test as justification for any act of disobedience.  What you're asking me to do is not "in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to [me]".  What are the objective standards?  Husband wants to make a financial decision. (This is not in harmony with right reason, aka, I think that's nuts, so I won't give in.).  Husband asks the wife to clean toilets.  (This is not in harmony with my dignity.)  This is a very slippery slope and the insertion of this passage is almost a little bone being thrown to the feminists that they would take and run with.  Several popes try to diplomatically throw these little bones out there but then are a little native in understanding that those who want to will runs with this to justify all manner of bad behavior.  Many popes have been burned by these things (Pius XII, especially, and even Pius IX on a couple things).  He really needed to go into more detail here to undo the possible damage this would cause.  Remember that this is the same Pope whose diplomacy hung the poor Cristeros out to dry.

Anyone that disagrees with me for any reason may proceed to call me Pope Tradhican the Great

Well, "the Great" part is going a bit too far, don't you think?  I mean, that title is reserved for those of Karol Wojtyla's caliber.