The Church's words prove the contrary to what you claim: In March 1616 the Church described Copernicanism: the "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture," and took action against it so it would not "creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth."
Copernicanism/Pythagorean doctrines are condemned as false
These condemned pagan doctrines are described as ALTOGETHER (this means totally) contrary to Scripture
These condemned pagan doctrines had been creeping in to the prejudice of Catholic truth (something you are pretending was acceptance)
The ridiculous assertion that the Church agreed earth was a sphere, is rendered false.  The Church fully condemned these pagan doctrines, called them FALSE and HERETICAL, and very specifically condemned them because they were ALTOGETHER contrary to Scripture.
 

Look at the Church's words in context.  They do not prove what you claim:

This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus’ On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zúñiga’s On Job. This may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite Fa- ther, whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, on the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth’s Motion and Sun’s Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System (Naples: Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615), in which the said Father tries to show that the above- mentioned doctrine of the sun’s rest at the center of the world and of the earth’s motion is consonant with the truth and does not contradict Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not advance any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zúñiga (On Job) be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be completely prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which teach the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether with the present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them respectively.

Do you see anything about spherical earth in this docuмent?  It is quite explicit that "the false Pythagorean doctrine" being condemned is that "the earth moves and the sun is motionless." It even repeats that the problem is with the idea "of the sun's rest at the center of the world and the earth's motion."  

There is no justification whatsoever for claiming that somehow this docuмent implies a condemnation of the spherical earth. It clearly defines what it means by "false Pythagorean doctrine" and there is no mention of spherical earth there. That is ALTOGETHER the product of your imagination.  Since we know that the Church approved geocentric Ptolemaic model also posited a spherical earth, it is obvious the Church has no problem with it.  

The Church employed several arguments against Galileo's moving sphere, including the firmament dome that covers earth, with sun and moon inside, among 19 other arguments. There's really no place to hide in hopes of protecting any aspect of spherical moving earth.  While some Catholics will certainly get a pass for not knowing, perhaps not being affected by this globalist agenda against God, the Copernican/Pythagorean doctrines driving modern science of today were long ago condemned because they damage the Faith.      

If you give exact quotes of these arguments, we will see nothing in them opposed to the earth being a sphere.  At the time of Galileo, spherical earth had already been the dominant view among Catholics for centuries.

You are seeing what you want to see but the there is no factual basis for it.

The quotes you provided above are a fraction of the arguments the Church provided.  Your repugnance to getting to the truth of the matter won't get them from me, either.

You cannot provide quotes that show the Church included spherical earth in her condemnation of heliocentrism because such quotes do not exist.  That is the real reason that we can't get them from you.  You are the one denying the truth and any reasonable person can see it.

I think that it's perfectly fine to say something like, "It is my opinion that Scripture teaches flat earth."  Once could make that case.  But it's obvious that the Church, at very least, tolerates globe earth ... and leaves it open for Catholics to hold that opinion.

Similarly, I could say that I believe a certain position or proposition to be heresy, but I do not declare to be formally heretical those who hold it if the Church has not defined it.

.
The Church isn't going to make a formal definition regarding the shape of the earth because it's silliness to expect that, on several levels.
.
First of all, the Church is not in the business of, nor is she expected to weigh in on the physical description of material reality. The Church doesn't pronounce on the thermal conductivity of diamond vs. cubic zirconia. The Church does not proclaim the correct values for specific gravity of various elements or compounds such as gold, mercury, zinc, carbon or montmorillonite clay.
.
Second, the shape of the earth is not a matter for our concern relative to our eternal salvation. Since it is the Church's place to keep things in order for us to know what is important to save our souls, she isn't going to fly off the handle making any such definition just to settle the rabble of the madding crowd. Besides, it wouldn't have that effect, anyway!
.
Third, ever since All Souls' Day, 1950, the Church has been reticent on ANY definition and thanks to Vat.II, Newchurch has turned a blind eye to definition per se. Therefore, don't expect not only no definitive language on the shape of the earth, but neither on the reality of Mary Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix or Queen of Heaven. Regarding the latter, thanks to one line in Scripture, it would be like shooting herself in the foot to do so. No matter whether it is incuмbent on Catholics to render hyperdulia to the Mother of God and to accept her as our spiritual mother lest we regret not having done so in eternity, the Church is not about to define that, at least at the present time.
.
Fourth, and for our concerns here on CI, this might be the most compelling:  the Church is not going to proclaim definitively that the earth is spheroid (for that is the only thing she could rightly say about it) because then the naysayers and rabble-rousers (not unlike those flat-earthers here on this forum) and instigators of controversy would leap for joy at the chance of accusing the Church of "contradicting" herself (even though it wouldn't be any such contradiction). Furthermore, since such flat-earthers might well be otherwise good Catholics, by rendering her definition to settle the matter she would instead nudge ill-informed but well-meaning Catholics toward a loss of faith since their edifice was built on a foundation of SAND.
.
As such pathetic drive-by flatulents like happenby have shown, they're all too eager to assert the falsehood that the Church has condemned the concept of a spheroid earth, a farce and fallacy if there ever was one. 
.

.
It's nice to see flat-earthers know when they've lost the argument.
.

This is childish, bumping dormant threads to declare victory.

This is childish, bumping dormant threads to declare victory.

.
Sorry for disturbing your slumber.
.
I gave a reasoned reply to your post, below, and you threw in the towel by not responding.
Now you resort to ad hominem and insult because I dared to notice your lack of response after 2 weeks?
What's "dormant" about a thread that's been waiting for YOU for 2 weeks? You going to sleep?
It's all about you, eh?
Maybe you don't like it recognized when you're unwilling to be reasonable.
.

.
Quote from: Ladislaus on April 13, 2018, 06:31:37 PM

Quote

I think that it's perfectly fine to say something like, "It is my opinion that Scripture teaches flat earth."  Once could make that case.  But it's obvious that the Church, at very least, tolerates globe earth ... and leaves it open for Catholics to hold that opinion.

Similarly, I could say that I believe a certain position or proposition to be heresy, but I do not declare to be formally heretical those who hold it if the Church has not defined it.

.
The Church isn't going to make a formal definition regarding the shape of the earth because it's silliness to expect that, on several levels.
.
First of all, the Church is not in the business of, nor is she expected to weigh in on the physical description of material reality. The Church doesn't pronounce on the thermal conductivity of diamond vs. cubic zirconia. The Church does not proclaim the correct values for specific gravity of various elements or compounds such as gold, mercury, zinc, carbon or montmorillonite clay.
.
Second, the shape of the earth is not a matter for our concern relative to our eternal salvation. Since it is the Church's place to keep things in order for us to know what is important to save our souls, she isn't going to fly off the handle making any such definition just to settle the rabble of the madding crowd. Besides, it wouldn't have that effect, anyway!
.
Third, ever since All Souls' Day, 1950, the Church has been reticent on ANY definition and thanks to Vat.II, Newchurch has turned a blind eye to definition per se. Therefore, don't expect not only no definitive language on the shape of the earth, but neither on the reality of Mary Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix or Queen of Heaven. Regarding the latter, thanks to one line in Scripture, it would be like shooting herself in the foot to do so. No matter whether it is incuмbent on Catholics to render hyperdulia to the Mother of God and to accept her as our spiritual mother lest we regret not having done so in eternity, the Church is not about to define that, at least at the present time.
.
Fourth, and for our concerns here on CI, this might be the most compelling:  the Church is not going to proclaim definitively that the earth is spheroid (for that is the only thing she could rightly say about it) because then the naysayers and rabble-rousers (not unlike those flat-earthers here on this forum) and instigators of controversy would leap for joy at the chance of accusing the Church of "contradicting" herself (even though it wouldn't be any such contradiction). Furthermore, since such flat-earthers might well be otherwise good Catholics, by rendering her definition to settle the matter she would instead nudge ill-informed but well-meaning Catholics toward a loss of faith since their edifice was built on a foundation of SAND.
.
As such pathetic drive-by flatulents like happenby have shown, they're all too eager to assert the falsehood that the Church has condemned the concept of a spheroid earth, a farce and fallacy if there ever was one.
.

.
I know, you'd like to see your weak posts forgotten. Well guess what? They're baaaaaack.
.
Now go back to sleep!  :baby:

A line and an arc are as different to each other as a plane and a sphere are to each other. Pretending a line is an arc or a plane is a sphere is the common tom foolery of the globalists.

An arc is not a line? And reality changes if one changes the definition of a term? Wow, you learn something new every day from Flatters. 

An individual's reality changes when people arbitrarily change definitions with an intent to deceive.  This is the game the globalists play every day.  They pretend the line of the horizon, curves.  Lol.  Just saying it is absurd. Globalists say a plane's attitude indicator magically keeps the PLANE curving around the outside of a spherical earth, so it doesn't go off into space, proving they either have no understanding how such mechanical devices work, or they are liars. Globalists say water surface curves.  Uh, like never.  So, when globalists say arc and/or line, either/or could be either/or and they are proven stupid or lying.  

An arc is not a line? And reality changes if one changes the definition of a term? Wow, you learn something new every day from Flatters.

.
It goes to show how flat-earthers keep trying to dumb-down the discussion.
They're like the progressive education policy makers who are destroying our schools these days: dumbing down the schools.
.
I made just one post that included:

Why a straight line track on earth for large distances is not possible

What the shortest distance is between any two points on the earth

Shorter arc of circle passing through both points + this circle has largest radius possible

This video also covers why navigators do not generally use GC route plan but series of short Rhumb line segments

The reason is GC course execution is not practical since it requires constant course adjustment port and starboard

Short segments of Rhumb line however only need occasional adjustment with steady rudder settings in between


So how do they respond?
Do they have anything to say about the shortest line between two points on earth? No.
Do they have a comment about large distances being impossible to track with a straight line? No.
Anything about arc or circles passing through points and their radius? No.
Navigators? Do we have questions or comments about navigators? No.
Have they learned to type "GC"? No.
Can they type the word "rumb?" No.
.
All they have to say is:

Pretending a line is an arc or a plane is a sphere is the common tom foolery of the globalists.
An individual's reality changes when people arbitrarily change definitions with an intent to deceive.
.
Actually, I could have written these mundane idiocies in advance for you but why bother -- let them dig their own grave.