No, since it is not true, we do not all know it.  You and perhaps a few others imagine it.  

It was evident in the different texts of PD. Besides PD encourages students holding the literal sense of Scripture to support or even further  expound on the opinions of the Fathers who did the same. Your argument is with PD now.

...the sacred writers or more truly “the Spirit of God, who spoke 
through them, did not wish to teach men these things (namely, the 
innermost constitution of the visible universe) as being of no profit to 
salvation”; that, therefore, they do not carry an explanation of nature 
scientifically, but rather sometimes describe and treat the facts themselves, 
either in a figurative manner, or in the common language of their times... 

...scriptores sacros, seu verius « Spiritum Dei, qui per ipsos loquebatur, noluisse ista (videlicet intimam adspectabilium rerum constitutionem) docere homines, nulli saluti profutura »; quare eos, potius quam explorationem naturae recta persequantur, res ipsas aliquando describere et tractare aut quodam translationis modo, aut sicut communis sermo per ea ferebat tempora... 

You've been shown the word "things" was added in some translations.  Martin Luther comes to mind here. The addition of the word "things" manages to  negate the layout of the sentence.  How? PD says parenthetically,  "...Did NOT wish to teach men these things as being of NO profit"... which means these things are of profit, because "not" and "no" cancel each other out to make the sentence read positive.  However, when the word "things" is duplicated after the parentheses, it suggests that these "things" are of no profit to salvation by adding another "things"  So it says, after the parentheses, "things of no profit to salvation". This is not only counter intuitive grammatically speaking, and those who added "things" get an F in grammar and deserve an expulsion for tampering, but it also denies the remaining portions of PD and relegates Scripture's more scientific aspects of geography and creation to the trash bin.  Not a healthy view by any standards. Especially since Scripture is soooo descriptive about the form of the earth and since the Fathers expounded on this.  It is for this reason that the average joe ought not tread where he has no understanding, at least until he has understanding. No doubt this level of exegeses will fly over you like a kite on a windy day, not because you haven't the intellect, but because your intellect is blocked.  Yet this is what PD is saying, proven by the quotes I added from PD (above).  So my comments are here for the record, for those Catholics who are reading and want to know.    

The Fathers disagreed about the form of the earth.  Only in later times did Catholics reach a consensus - that the earth is a sphere.  Providentissimus Deus shows that some Fathers (and virtually all later Catholics) were correct to not take literally figurative language that might suggest a flat earth.

Flat earth is not a Catholic position.  One cannot make a claim that it is Catholic merely because some Fathers believed in it.  Genuine Catholic views persist throughout time. Belief in flat earth did not persist.

Some, but not all, Fathers accepted it and then the idea disappeared for over a thousand years.  Then it was revived by Fundamentalist heretics.  It primarily gained acceptance among heretics and neopagans.  Does that sound like a Catholic idea?  Is there any Catholic belief with such a history?

No, that is not what the word "consensus" means.  The definition is "an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group."  It has nothing to do with teaching as opposed to belief. (Also, your claim is false that no Father taught earth is a globe.)  You admit that some Fathers believed the earth is a globe.  It follows, if one uses standard definitions for words, that there was no consensus.

False, false, false, and again false.  The Church does not support flat earth, although I suppose you might be making up your own special definitions again.  Nor does Scripture, as traditionally understood by most Catholics throughout history, support flat earth.  Magisterial teaching supports the non-literal interpretation of your proof verses. The Church's condemnation of heliocentrism in no way even hints at any problems with spherical earth which had long been part of the geocentric model accepted and promoted by Catholics and Catholic institutions.

The modern revival of the idea of flat earth is a primarily a movement of heretics and pagans.  There is no reason for Catholics to have anything to do with them.