Again happenby seems unable to get a grasp on the distinction between heliocentrism and a globular Earth, the quotation about Copernicus concerning the introduction of the former, not the latter.

Geocentrism and terrestrial sphericity are not mutually exclusive concepts. To the contrary, the only way for the Earth to be the true centre of the cosmos, from all directions, is for the cosmos and the Earth with it to be spherical.

Wiki says most ancients were flat earthers and the multitude of drawings and maps proving that are readily available on Wiki and the Internet.

More than 2000 postings, counting only those on CathInfo, and you still haven't learned that "Wiki" is not Wikipedia!?[×]

It's high time that you learned several simple-but-fundamental things about both, then took them to heart (I'm sure it won't hinder your rate of churning out future postings):

•  Wiki is not acceptable as an abbreviation for Wikipedia.  It's certainly no more acceptable than misusing "Photo" to abbreviate Photoshop, or "Page" to abbreviate "PageMaker", or worst but once quite common, "Java" to abbreviate Javascript.

•  Wiki is instead the widely accepted technical term for a software technology, as invented by Ward Cunningham ca. 1994, when in his mid 40s [†].

•  Wikipedia is merely the world's most popular instance of the wiki technology.  Many wiki instances--possibly the majority--are publicly invisible, being on the secured side of computer networks that serve a sanitized Internet to their (own) users.

•  Wikipedia is quite risky for Catholics to use to obtain information for debating faith or morals.  The site was notoriously skunked for such purposes by its protracted "Essjay scandal" [▼].

•  Wikipedia more-or-less uncritically accepts & presents propaganda from the "Southern Poverty" Law Center [✡] that's hostile to traditional Catholic faith or morals.

-------
Note ×: <http://wiki.c2.com/?WikipediaIsNotWiki>, and more peripherally <http://wiki.c2.com/?WikiIsNotWikipedia> (both pages require enabling Javascript).

Note †: Cunningham installed his WikiWikiWeb as accessible to the Internet in 1995, at his age 45.  That's at least 5 years later than the age at which U.S. corporate "human resources" drones typically-but-cluelessly judge software engineers of comparable seniority to be "unable to learn or use new technology", thus, as the Brits say, "redundant".  Fortunately for him and us, he was a principal in a high-tech consulting business at the time.

Note ▼: "Essjay" was a 20-something college drop-out who, as a "Wikipedian", claimed to be a 30-something-or-older tenured professor of religion at an unidentified secular college in the U.S. Northeast, and a specialist in the Catholic religion. So he indulged himself in extensive editing of articles on religion in Wikipedia, winning edit wars over those articles by flaunting his fraudulent--but persistent--claim of having earned dual doctorates: a Ph.D. in theology and a J.C.D. in Canon Law, and stretching those into claims of which textbooks and other reference material he required his alleged students to use in the college courses he allegedly taught.  Somewhat later, he claimed that he didn't endure the academic grind for those degrees to defend the Faith, but instead, out of detached academic interest, which he explained with claims to be a politically liberal Protestant sodomite with a live-in "partner".   He rose rapidly into the highest ranks of Wikipedia editorial power before he was, um, busted!  (2006--2007) by Wikipedia Review: <http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778>.

Note ✡: I trust that by now (2018), all CathInfo readers can display the Star-of-David Dingbat (Unicode 1.0.0: 1991) reference mark (to the immediate right of the introductory word "Note") that I'm using in this posting for the "Southern Poverty" Law Center ("SP"LC), whose founding majority was Jєωιѕн, and whose leadership is still top-heavy with Jєωs.

Indeed, nearly all ancient cultures considered the earth to be flat.  That to me is very compelling.  Why?  Because if cultures scattered around the world come up with a very similar cosmology, it's likely rooted in some "primitive revelation" (and direct knowledge).  Similarly, if the Church Fathers, scattered around the world, unanimously consider something to be revealed, then it's certain that it was.

What do you mean by "taught"?  Typically the Church does not teach about science.

The Church condemned heliocentrists, tried them for heresy and banned their books, while endorsing geocentrist works and authors. It sent a pretty clear messagr to Catholics about which they should believe. 

Ancient cultures agreeing on something is nothing like Church Fathers unanimously considering something to be revealed.

Oh, it most certainly is.  Reason is the same.  If the Church Fathers, scattered around the world, happened to come up with the exact same thing, it's indicative of Apostolic Origin.  THAT is why the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers is considered proof of something being revealed.  There's no special charism of the Holy Spirit tied to the Church Fathers.

#1) I never said that it was proof, just that it's compelling.

#2) Polytheism could be the reflection of a common experience, such as demonic entities.

#3) In most of these polytheistic cultures, the "gods" were more superior beings of some kind, whether demonic entities, giants, the "sons of God" cited in Scripture, or some superior race(s) that they encountered.  Hard to say.

#4) Primitive Revelation is a very real thing.  Adam and Eve in their unfallen state, with intellects unencuмbered by Original Sin, and also because they "walked with God" in Eden, were privy to a great deal of knowledge about the natural world.  Some of this was passed down and transmitted through their offspring.

#5) Finally, and most importantly, if you look at the cosmology of ancient cultures, they are nearly identical in many of the details.  It's one thing to say that all these cultures were polytheistic ... but if these cultures ALL, for example, had exactly 10 gods, then you could be sure that it has to do with some real experience of a group of ten entities of some kind that they viewed as gods or preternatural beings.  Now, just because they interpreted these beings as "gods" doesn't even necessarily mean that they were ... just that they were greatly superior to them in some way.  It's just statistically almost impossible that they could randomly come up with the exact same thing.

I do not find it the least bit compelling.  It is wishful thinking to see this as some sort of evidence for the earth being flat.

Belief in flat earth was a reflection of the common experience of the earth appearing flat to the senses. Nobody could see it all at once and see that it is a sphere.  Figuring out that it is a sphere requires making deductions from observations.  And over time, virtually all of these primitive cultures made those deductions and moved on to belief in a spherical earth.  

#1) I never said that it was proof, just that it's compelling.

#2) Polytheism could be the reflection of a common experience, such as demonic entities.

#3) In most of these polytheistic cultures, the "gods" were more superior beings of some kind, whether demonic entities, giants, the "sons of God" cited in Scripture, or some superior race(s) that they encountered.  Hard to say.

#4) Primitive Revelation is a very real thing.  Adam and Eve in their unfallen state, with intellects unencuмbered by Original Sin, and also because they "walked with God" in Eden, were privy to a great deal of knowledge about the natural world.  Some of this was passed down and transmitted through their offspring.

#5) Finally, and most importantly, if you look at the cosmology of ancient cultures, they are nearly identical in many of the details.  It's one thing to say that all these cultures were polytheistic ... but if these cultures ALL, for example, had exactly 10 gods, then you could be sure that it has to do with some real experience of a group of ten entities of some kind that they viewed as gods or preternatural beings.  Now, just because they interpreted these beings as "gods" doesn't even necessarily mean that they were ... just that they were greatly superior to them in some way.  It's just statistically almost impossible that they could randomly come up with the exact same thing.

If polytheism can be a reflection of a common experience, then so can belief in a flat Earth, and that is the obvious answer: we experience the Earth as locally flat, and ancient cultures had little basis in their scope of the world for inferring anything else.
There’s no reason to say of the common belief that it’s “likely” due to some primitive revelation.