You seem to be stuck on the notion that it was either taught or condemned. I don't believe it was either. The quotes from St. Augustine and St. Basil prove this. It was not part of the faith and was a waste of time to pursue knowledge of it. This is a pretty bold teaching if not true.
I did not say I have quotes of some of the Fathers who TAUGHT globe earth. I said they believed in globe earth and it's obvious they were not concerned with it as a matter of faith. Also, the only Church Father that specifically condemned globe earth was Lacantius. My quotes are here in the Library section under the title "Church fathers did not condemn globe earth".

---

St. Gregory of Nyssa speaking to St. Macrina, Sister of St. Basil: "I say, there is an absolute necessity that, whatever may happen to each one of the atoms on the upper side of the earth, the same will happen on the opposite side, seeing that one single substance encompasses its entire bulk. As, when the sun shines above the earth, the shadow is spread over its lower part, because its spherical shape makes it impossible for it to be clasped all round at one and the same time by the rays, and necessarily, on whatever side the sun's rays may fall on some particular point of the globe, if we follow a straight diameter, we shall find shadow upon the opposite point, and so, continuously, at the opposite end of the direct line of the rays shadow moves round that globe, keeping pace with the sun, so that equally in their turn both the upper half and the under half of the earth are in light and darkness; so, by this analogy, we have reason to be certain that, whatever in our hemisphere is observed to befall the atoms, the same will befall them in that other."



Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor: “And how the Earth and sea their place should keep; And when the seasons, in their circling course, winter and summer, spring and autumn, each should come, according to well ordered plan; out of a confused heap who didst create this ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass.”



Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man: "For just as those skilled in astronomy tell us that the whole universe is full of light, and that darkness is made to cast its shadow by the interposition of the body formed by the earth; and that this darkness is shut off from the rays of the sun, in the shape of a cone, according to the figure of the sphere-shaped body, and behind it; while the sun, exceeding the earth by a size many times as great as its own, enfolding it round about on all sides with its rays, unites at the limit of the cone the concurrent streams of light"

First, with Stubborn, I argued using Catholic Teaching for a long time. He explicitly, in the past, has said that he refuses to read Catholic Teaching when debating about Sedevacantism. This gets old after a while because he does nothing but spout nonsense and make stuff up. This is why I started arguing with him in this way. It's the only thing that he responds to. When Catholic Teaching is brought up, he shuts down and refuses to hear.
Second, With happenby, she and others like her, claim that this FE is part of the Catholic Faith and treat others who disagree with it as heretics. There is no proof whatsoever of this being Catholic Teaching.
Third, Even though I said she is deceitful, I tried to be fair and said maybe it's because she isn't reading what I'm writing.
So thank you Meg, for your concern, but there is a reason for the things I write.

First, with Stubborn, I argued using Catholic Teaching for a long time. He explicitly, in the past, has said that he refuses to read Catholic Teaching when debating about Sedevacantism. This gets old after a while because he does nothing but spout nonsense and make stuff up. This is why I started arguing with him in this way. It's the only thing that he responds to. When Catholic Teaching is brought up, he shuts down and refuses to hear.
Second, With happenby, she and others like her, claim that this FE is part of the Catholic Faith and treat others who disagree with it as heretics. There is no proof whatsoever of this being Catholic Teaching.
Third, Even though I said she is deceitful, I tried to be fair and said maybe it's because she isn't reading what I'm writing.
So thank you Meg, for your concern, but there is a reason for the things I write.

Really? When he says that it is anathema to say the Pope is not the Pope, he isn't making things up? Why was St. Vincent not condemned when he followed an antipope in opposition to the Pope.
When he says that a heretic is in the Catholic Church, he isn't making things up? There are numerous teaching that say that heretics and those who disbelieve in Church Teaching are not in the Catholic Church.Happenby has misstated my argument twice and hasn't apologized for it. This lends itself towards dishonesty. If not, well I said maybe she didn't read what I wrote. As for her seeing the arguments before, that's not true because she was unaware of the quotes I provided. Then she had to come up with very weak arguments to try to refute or explain away the Catholic Saint quotes I provided that don't go along with her viewpoint.
On top of that, it's not Catholic to put a virtual anathema on those who don't believe a teaching as infallible because it hasn't been taught at all, just because you feel strongly about the issue.

None of this is provable since there is no Church Teaching to back it up.

I'm not interested in "how the flat earth works". I want logical deductions proving that the quoted verses are impossibilities unless the Earth is flat. Put up or shut up, woman.

Question: how can Heaven be infinite if it is infinitely limited in the direction of the Earth?

By the way, where do the foundations of the Earth in the flat model end? Since everything falls "down", where "down" is a direction peperdicular to and towards the flat plane of the Earth, and the Earth needs foundations in order not to fall itself, what about the foundations?

If they end, what do they sit upon, and how are these upheld? Are they infinite, or rest upon somethign infinite, again, how is that which is infinite upheld? After all, it's perfectly reasonable to consider an infinite body to be in motion, so what stops the foundations, finite or infinite, from moving, given that everythign material must move in a downward direction unless upheld by something that in its turns needs to be immovable?