1. No He doesn't and Saint Basil and Saint Augustine explicitly say that Scripture does not do that.
2. No there isn't. You cannot prove that our faith is dependent upon the knowledge of every specific aspect of the ins and outs of God's Creation; we must only believe that He created it and orders everything well.
3. To say this is to be ignorant of the use of allegory in Scripture.
4. This is just flat out not true. There is no proof that the Globe view of creation is at odds with anything necessary to our faith.

1Where do St. Basil and St. Augustine explicitly say that Scripture does not do that? What are the quotes?
2 Faith is dependent on acceptance of revealed truth, whether you like it or not.
3 Scripture is to be interpreted in the literal sense, a teaching already defined.
Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8):  the Council infallibly teaches that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine...interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”  The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures as supporting a geocentric cosmology. 
4 “Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith...It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.”    Robert Bellarmine; Galileo Trial

1. Already gave those quotes in the last two pages
2. Yes it is, what's your point. The shape of the Earth is not part of revealed truth.
3. I agree. The problem is that the "literal sense" means the "sense" in which the Author intended it. It does not necessarily mean what the reader understands the translation of the original text to be. If this were the case, there would be no point of a Church to teach us what it means and Scripture would appear to contradict itself in many areas. Also, this has nothing to do with Geocentrism. Geocentrism could work with a spherical Earth as well a flat one because God is omnipotent.
4. And...?I know your beliefs in regards to BOD so don't go there. You know as well as I do that a Saint's opinion as to what's de fide is not infallible, so this argument doesn't work. This is especially true since we have a later Pope saying that the Earth may not be the center of the Universe and that it shouldn't diminish our amazement at God's Creation.

Your quotes do not prove any saint taught heliocentrism or globe earth, nor that they condemned flat earth.
The shape of the earth is absolutely part of revealed truth--in scripture.
The author intended to reveal truth, not deny it.  The saints, fathers and doctors have expounded on this and the Church condemned the Copernican doctrine which is heliocentrism and spherical earth belongs to heliocentrism as a model. 
One saints opinion, two saints opinions, do not constitute infallible teaching or doctrine, especially when it is contrary to Church teaching or the consensus of saints.  So, don't suggest that I am saying that a couple of guys, against the mind of the Church, say earth is flat.  That is erroneous.  All the saints who taught the subject of geocentrism are in unison: The earth is flat and geocentric.  And that, is a consensus for discerning the mind of the Church, especially since it agrees with scripture.

Who claims that the entire Church can defect?? Not I. For your information, it wasn’t just one or two who did not attend or sign the docuмents, it was many. As a matter of fact, My bishop and the neighboring diocesan bishop attended only one session! Even if some bishops did in fact sign the docuмents, it seems evident to me, that that is not enough proof to proclaim that they were manifest heretics. So are you willing to retract the false statement you just made about me?

So, where are these non-manifest-heretic bishops who have jurisidiction TODAY?

I like how you erroneously attribute to me things that I’ve never claimed. You have a very bad habit of this. Just to make it perfectly clear, I certainly don’t agree with Father Cekada on all things. Also, I’ve never heard him claim that theologians are infallible. Do you have any quotes to support this?

So why is it "PRIDE" to disagree with said theologians on a particular theological point?

There are still three alive that were appointed under Pope Pius XII and there are still many that were appointed under John XXIII. I do not concede that those appointed under doubtful popes can’t be lawful successors of the Apostles. This is due to common error. As a matter of fact, I think it possible that even some appointed under Paul VI may be eligible.

Oh, that's right, the three.  Whether they were appointed under doubtful popes, they're all manifest heretics now, aren't they?

What is obvious to a rational and objective person is the fact that all three groups prefer *their* own interpretation of Scripture, tradition, and the Church’s councils to the common opinion (sometimes unanimous opinion) of what the Church’s experts (Popes, theologians, Doctors) teach.
In a word...PRIDE.

.
Everyone's prideful.
.
You're closer with the first half of the comment.  They do not learn from the ordinary magisterium.  Out of all Catholic history, this generation is at the greatest disadvantage because there hasn't been an ordinary (or extraordinary) magisterium from which to learn during their lifetime.  So it is understandable that this error would be rampant among traditionalist Catholics.  I say this without implying that a person is always innocent of the error, or that it is excusable.  It should and must be corrected.  But the environment in which we live most certainly makes this an error to which people are easily susceptible.
.
Catholic learning is the greatest casualty of our times.

Either you are having a hard time following our conversation or you are deliberately being deceitful. This is what was said: You-"The reason I care about the shape of the earth is because God tells us everything about it in scripture." Me: "No He doesn't and Saint Basil and Saint Augustine explicitly say that Scripture does not do that."
This turned into you falsely stating above, that I claim Saints condemned flat Earth. This is not true at all. Since you are incapable of following along or intentionally lying, here are the parts of the quotes I was talking about.

He made the upper heavens about which David sang: "The heaven of the heavens is the Lord's."6 This heaven forms in a certain way the upper stage of the firmament. As in any two-story house, there is an intermediate stage; well in this building which is the world, the Creator has prepared the sky as an intermediate level, and he has put it over the waters; from where this passage of David: "It is you who covered with water its upper part.“7