.
Flat-earthism is an UNscientific opinion. There is no evidence for it.
.

My point is that it's a question of science and not theology.  Pope Leo XIII taught that even if the Church Fathers were unanimous on a point of science, that was not to be taken as a matter of faith and was subject to correction.

Sedevacantists like Recusant refuse to see the contradiction of claiming, on the one hand, that the consensus of theologians is effectively infallible and a proximate rule of faith while, on the other hand, asserting that the consensus of all the Church's bishops teaching the Universal Church in Ecuмenical Council failed.  So theologians can't be wrong while the entire Ecclesia Docens, the world's bishops, can teach heresy and defect en masse.  Anti-BoD sedevacantists also claim that heretical ecclesiology is the chief of Vatican II's errors while at the same time holding the same ecclesiology themselves in their obsessive neurotic attack against Father Feeney, the only man who REALLY saw what was happening in the Church.  Sedevacantists champion the cause of the Heresiarch Cushing over the faithful Traditional Father Feeney.

. 
Nice.
.
Sedes backing the heresiarch Cushing, and probably not even aware of it, eh?
.
Maybe they ought to become informed -- by us!
.

A) they are extremely stupid
B) they are unpleasant to be around and lack most social graces
C) they are  "mouth breathers"
D) all of the above

What about the stupid people who see curve where there is none?

Have you seen the curve?

1) I don’t believe that the Church has ever raised to the level of dogma that the Earth is a globe.
2) I don’t consider those who believe in a FE to be outside the Church because of #1, however I do consider then extremely gullible people.
3) I do believe in the geocentric model, but I don’t believe that one is a heretic if he doubts or denies it.
4) I question your interpretation of what the authorities you cite wrote, so please cite them.
5) Even if it is unquestionably true that a few of them believed in a FE, the vast majority disagrees.

You're a LIAR!

Where the Fathers spoke on the issue of the globe MOST condemned it!

STOP LYING!

My point is that it's a question of science and not theology.  Pope Leo XIII taught that even if the Church Fathers were unanimous on a point of science, that was not to be taken as a matter of faith and was subject to correction.

The Church teaches that She proscribes science.

I agree with you here. The point I was making in the OP is that the FEers believe that it is dogmatic that the Earth is flat when in fact that not only science but most Church authorities believed the Earth to be a globe.

This is laughable.  Most Church authorities believed earth to be a globe? Prove it.  Then show one teaching from one Catholic authority of the past that earth is a globe. 

Happenby verses St. Basil. Hmmm....

Basil, Hexaemeron: “Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circuмference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.”

This is an opinion of St. Basil, not a teaching, and he doesn't say that earth is a globe. Perhaps St. Basil was unaware that many saints have presented literal interpretations of scripture, (including St. Jerome who was born a dozen or so years after Basil) based on the great cosmographer Moses, in clear and concise teachings, the geocentric and flat form of the earth.  Several came after Basil who was born in 330.
Since when does a glancing observation by a saint warrant the dismissal of all other saints' writings on the subject?  Had it been a teaching of some sort to the contrary of geocentric flat earth all the rest teach, it might mean something.  I say 'might' because it would still be only 1 teaching against the rest. But doesn't address the issue per se, and so is certainly not a teaching on the subject. 
Further, this line speaks volumes because Basil is casting doubt on the sphericity of earth in saying: It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circuмference;

No contradiction in the least. The Council “failed” due to the lack of a pope. The whole ED did not defect as there were some who did not attend, some that did not sign the docs, some who were confused with what they were signing, and still others that were innocent in not realizing what they were actually signing.

Except that theologians hold that the entire Church cannot defect by accepting a false pope.  Just because one or two did not attend and a couple didn't sign does not mean that the body of the Church's bishops as a whole did not fail.  In any case, this can happen, according to you, but it's not possible that theologians could embrace a false opinion.  Well, this did happen.  For over 700 years every theologian held to St. Augustine's erroneous view regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism ... until this was overturned by the Church.  This effective infallibility of theologians nonsense (I call it Cekadism) has led to a lot of errors among sedevacantists ... and has led to the contradiction of condemning V2 ecclesiology while at the same time promoting the same ecclesiology.  As a result, sedevacantists don't even come close to understanding the true theological problem of Vatican II.