No worries Meg, you're doing a wonderful job.   In some ways, that quote says it all.  This whole argument is based in the war between the Church and the occult.  I think its stunning when someone who has no knowledge of flat earth like Fr. Ripperger comes out and says something as poignant as this:
"People's denial of the knowledge of God, or that you can come to a knowledge of God, is rooted in certain metaphysical problems in relationship to reality. The common teaching among philosophers is, What your cosmology is, how you view the physical world, the world around you, will determine what your understand of what actually God is.  Due to modern philosophers, People's understanding of the real world has degraded their ability to actually understand things about God by the natural light of reason."  

That's a very appropriate quote from Fr. Ripperger. Quote: "The common teaching among philosophers is, what your cosmology is, how you view the physical world, the world around you, will determine what your understand(ing) of what God actually is."

Maybe Catholics won't be so adversely affected by the globe-earth cosmology, in that they still believe that God created the earth, but society at large doesn't really care about the fact of Creation, and that God created it.

Fr. Ripperger above also says..."Due to modern philosophers, Peoples understanding of the real world has degraded their ability to actually understand things about God by the natural light of reason."
The world today is permeated with occultism. I have family members who are occultists, unfortunately. I saw the new Star Wars movie yesterday with my husband, and that film is SO permeated with occultism (and Buddhism), and yet that's just considered a normal thing for most people today. They don't question it. Most trad Catholics won't see a film like Star Wars, but I think it's useful to see and know what the current Hollywood propaganda is doing to society today.

You said:
The forms of geocentrism that dominated Christendom and the West did not include a flat earth.  

Excuse me?  And you know this how?  Your proof? You have no proof.  In fact, the next sentence explains plenty. " The two most influential thinkers who promoted geocentrism were Aristotle and Ptolemy who both taught the earth is a sphere." Aristotle and Ptolemy had nothing to do with Christendom and their sphere theory reflects that. Further, as Wiki points out:  "Ptolemy wrote in Greek and can be shown to have utilized Babylonian astronomical data."

Ahem. Ptolemy was just another pagan occultist.

Also, Wiki goes on to say: "The maps look distorted when compared to modern maps, because Ptolemy's data were inaccurate."  As well as, "Ptolemy has been referred to as “a pro-astrological authority of the highest magnitude” and "Ptolemy's astrological outlook was quite practical: he thought that astrology was like medicine,..."

So, not only was Ptolemy a demonic pagan, his data was inaccurate.  With inaccurate data, what good was he?  Anyone who believed him was duped.  Ptolemy used false math and astrology to turn the stationary earth into a globe so the next pagan could spin it.  None of this proves geocentric models prior to Ptolemy taught earth was a globe.  

It is very hard to figure out what you would accept as evidence, since you appear to throw out any that does not support you.  There are countless sources to back up my claims about how Aristotle and Ptolemy were viewed in Christendom, but you have consistently rejected any that I have cited in the past.  Presumably you will accept a source that you yourself use.

The very same article on Ptolemy that you have been citing says of his work the Almagest:

Across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa in the Medieval period, it was the authoritative text on astronomy, with its author becoming an almost mythical figure, called Ptolemy, King of Alexandria.^[24] The Almagest was preserved, like most of extant Classical Greek science, in Arabic manuscripts (hence its familiar name). Because of its reputation, it was widely sought and was translated twice into Latin in the 12th century, once in Sicily and again in Spain.^[25] Ptolemy's model, like those of his predecessors, was geocentric and was almost universally accepted until the appearance of simpler heliocentric models during the scientific revolution.

The Babylonian astronomical data contained "systematic records of astronomical observations." The use of these detailed observations is what gave the Ptolemaic model its impressive predictive power.  This is not a "pagan occult" practice but how natural science works.  One makes observations of physical phenomena, basing theories on them which one tests by their ability to predict results.  The Ptolemaic model was one of the longest lasting theories in the history of science, accepted for over a thousand years because it worked so well.

Your quote about distorted maps based on inaccurate data are from a section of the article discussing Ptolemy's work on geography and have nothing to do with his astronomical model.

Again, you say stuff without proof.  As if the popular notions of any era made theory into fact.  There is no reason to believe the Church supported pagan astrology.  In fact, it is well proven that the Church was silenced by historical revisionism.  Look who people like yourself turn to for cosmological information these days: Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Einstein...100% of which were astrological heliocentric spherical pagan air bags.  Further proof: Everyone thought Galileo was right.  Turns out all modern belief of the Affair is erroneous and the result of revisionism.      

There is no reason to believe that I claimed that the Church supported pagan astrology.  Of course, she did not.  For most of history there was a close association between astronomy (a natural science supported by the Church) and astrology (a superstition which is not).  There was a similar relationship between the science of chemistry and the superstition of alchemy. 

Aristotle and Plato were geocentrists who believed in a spherical earth.  Where did you get the idea they were heliocentrists?

I am not sure you mean by saying that everyone thought Galileo was right.  This was not true of his contemporaries.  It is true that the current popular view is greatly distorted and could reasonably be called revisionism.  This does not prove that your understanding is correct.

From Wiki
The earliest reliably docuмented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy^[1][2] but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given.
The concept of a spherical Earth displaced earlier beliefs in a flat Earth:

I do not understand why you posted this.  Is it supposed to be an answer to the question in my post about why you think that Aristotle and Plato are heliocentrists?

Wikipedia on Geocentric model :

... most educated Greeks from the 4th century BC on thought that the Earth was a sphere at the center of the universe.^[12]
In the 4th century BC, two influential Greek philosophers, Plato and his student Aristotle, wrote works based on the geocentric model. According to Plato, the Earth was a sphere, stationary at the center of the universe.

There is no basis for using "geocentric" interchangeably with "flat-earth".  They are two different, independent things. One refers to planetary motion and the other to the shape of the earth.  

It is very hard to figure out what you would accept as evidence, since you appear to throw out any that does not support you.  There are countless sources to back up my claims about how Aristotle and Ptolemy were viewed in Christendom, but you have consistently rejected any that I have cited in the past.  Presumably you will accept a source that you yourself use.

The very same article on Ptolemy that you have been citing says of his work the Almagest:The Babylonian astronomical data contained "systematic records of astronomical observations." The use of these detailed observations is what gave the Ptolemaic model its impressive predictive power.  This is not a "pagan occult" practice but how natural science works.  One makes observations of physical phenomena, basing theories on them which one tests by their ability to predict results.  The Ptolemaic model was one of the longest lasting theories in the history of science, accepted for over a thousand years because it worked so well.

Your quote about distorted maps based on inaccurate data are from a section of the article discussing Ptolemy's work on geography and have nothing to do with his astronomical model.

Apparently you missed these two: "Ptolemy has been referred to as “a pro-astrological authority of the highest magnitude” and "Ptolemy's astrological outlook was quite practical: he thought that astrology was like medicine,..."

It is not reasonable at all to refer to this as church support. Errors push themselves in slowly. It would have crept in by the excuse that it was the domain of science. There is no evidence to show the the magesterium teaching round earthism ever. There is a difference between what was taught in some universities by some professors, and what Rome was teaching.

The majority of Fathers believed the Earth to be flat.

It is important as to what most ordinary people thought. All the evidence shows they did not accept the globe. Here are two examples which stand out

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t145-hereford-cathedral-map-of-the-world
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t141-hieronymus-bosch-15th-century-painter-flat-earth-painting

The latter is from the 15th century.

If you are tempted to scoff, remember that on such an issue, these kind of things are regarded as important evidence to judge what the popular opinion was. Historians are like detectives and deal with whatever evidence they have, even if it is sparse.

The magisterium did not teach that the earth is a sphere (or flat).  Church controlled universities taught that the earth is a sphere.  Even if one does not call this support from the Church, there were no objections from the Church.  It was within the power of the Church to stop the teaching of spherical earth at the universities and yet the Church allowed it.  

The magisterium, however, has taught against the literalistic interpretations of Scripture that some flat-earthers use to support their belief.

You claim that flat earth was the majority view, but I have also seen claims that spherical earth was the majority view among the Fathers.  It would take quite a bit of effort to actually figure out which one was the majority and it does not seem worth doing.  Either way, it is clear that the Fathers were not unanimous, which means they were expressing personal opinions that we have no obligation to believe.

The Hereford Cathedral map is a T&O map.  Here is a Wikipedia article on these maps.

The T and O map represents only the one half of the spherical Earth.^[3] It was presumably considered a convenient projection of known-inhabited parts, the northern temperate half of the globe. It was then believed that no one could cross the torrid equatorial clime and reach the unknown lands on the other half of the globe. These imagined lands were called antipodes.^[3][4]

Bosch's work on the inner panels of the triptych is clearly in a fantasy style with symbolic imagery rather than realism.  There is no reason to think the outer panels are meant as a realistic portrayal.  The tradition of making 3 dimensional representation of the earth goes back to at least the late 15th century since some survive from this time:
 

The magisterium did not teach that the earth is a sphere (or flat).  Church controlled universities taught that the earth is a sphere.  Even if one does not call this support from the Church, there were no objections from the Church.  It was within the power of the Church to stop the teaching of spherical earth at the universities and yet the Church allowed it. 

The magisterium, however, has taught against the literalistic interpretations of Scripture that some flat-earthers use to support their belief.

You claim that flat earth was the majority view, but I have also seen claims that spherical earth was the majority view among the Fathers.  It would take quite a bit of effort to actually figure out which one was the majority and it does not seem worth doing.  Either way, it is clear that the Fathers were not unanimous, which means they were expressing personal opinions that we have no obligation to believe.

The Hereford Cathedral map is a T&O map.  Here is a Wikipedia article on these maps.
Bosch's work on the inner panels of the triptych is clearly in a fantasy style with symbolic imagery rather than realism.  There is no reason to think the outer panels are meant as a realistic portrayal.  The tradition of making 3 dimensional representation of the earth goes back to at least the late 15th century since some survive from this time:
 

on the universities question, I would only be repeating myself.

You may still be obliged to believe someday what the Fathers taught even if it was not unanimous.

For the literal interpretation of scripture refer back to St. Pius Xs biblical commission.

On the maps. Clearly wikipedia is an authority for you. Enough said....

Boschs work is both imaginative and yet how the world was fundamentally viewed. It is not meant to be realistic as a map, but realistic as to the foundations.

Here is the science that Jaynek ignores....

Now this is what I'm talking about when you make statements but refuse to provide data to back it up.  Flat earth and fixed earth are aspects of the same geocentric model.  Round and moving earth are aspects of the heliocentric model.  The two are mutually exclusive even if during the attempt to overthrow geocentrism the spherical earth was considered possible by some who at the same time, refused to believe the earth was moving.  The fact is, both spherical earth (a pagan religious belief for the perfect deity) and moving earth around the sun (pagan heliocentric god) both originate from pagan occult science.      

I have provided so many quotes that support my claims about this.  I cannot understand what you mean by saying that I do not provide data to back it up.  What exactly is it that you need to see?  Do you need quotes directly from Ptolemy and Aristotle that show they believe the earth is a sphere and is also the center?

Virtually nobody has believed in a flat, fixed earth since the sixth century.  The main geocentric model that competed with the heliocentrism of Copernicus, et al. was that of Ptolemy. (There was another model by Tycho Brahe in the mix, but it also had a spherical earth.) What you refer to as geocentrism - the Jєωιѕн/Babylonian cosmology - is not even included in the Wikipedia article on geocentrism.  It has a separate entry under "Biblical cosmology. 

There is overwhelming evidence that there are more than two mutually exclusive models.  I cannot even understand how you can make such obviously wrong claims.