In general, here's the principle of authority that the Church Fathers have.  They are human beings only.  They have no special Magisterial authority that's any different than any bishop alive today (for the ones who were in fact bishops).  They're important because they CAN give insight into the contents of the Deposit.  When they unanimously agree that something has been taught by and handed down from the Apostles, that's where it's an infallible indicator of Tradition.  But, like all human beings, sometimes they teach on their own authority, and sometimes they even SPECULATE.  Several of them even slipped into one heresy or another from time to time.  I have not seen any indication in any of the Fathers who believed in flat earth that this was something received from the Apostles and that they were teaching with authority.

Yet another set of logical nonsequiturs.  So just because I think a different translation of the Hebrew may have been better, we need to "throw out our missal"?

No, I needn't come up with another word for strength, but a good Latin word that conveys the notion of "expanse".

I wouldn't even call this an error.  It's an interpretation.

ahem, the Latin word for "expanse" is spatium ... from which we get the word "space" ... or else one could use expansum.

In general, here's the principle of authority that the Church Fathers have.  They are human beings only.  They have no special Magisterial authority that's any different than any bishop alive today (for the ones who were in fact bishops).  They're important because they CAN give insight into the contents of the Deposit.  When they unanimously agree that something has been taught by and handed down from the Apostles, that's where it's an infallible indicator of Tradition.  But, like all human beings, sometimes they teach on their own authority, and sometimes they even SPECULATE.  Several of them even slipped into one heresy or another from time to time.  I have not seen any indication in any of the Fathers who believed in flat earth that this was something received from the Apostles and that they were teaching with authority.

No obligation to understand Scripture literally?  When the first understanding of Scripture is always based in the literal?  Do explain.  Do you have another teaching about the firmament?

I think Jayne does not want to answer any question regarding the firmament. I have to assume that she believes that the firmament is contrary to reason, and therefore it should be ignored. The assumption must then be, then, that she believes Scripture to be wrong regarding the firmament. She can correct me if that's a wrong understanding.

That is not what I think.  While I do think that belief in a literal solid firmament is contrary to reason, I am not ignoring it.  I am understanding it figuratively.  Scripture is not wrong.

And there is no reason that can't be.  They are not infallible.  Pope Leo explicitly said that they could be wrong on this subject:

"in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. "