The fact is, St Thomas’ globe model had a firmament.  As did St Bedes’.  Because they believed in Scripture and their model flowed from scripture as its origin.

Your snowglobe is the fairytale.  St. Thomas, St. Bede, and also the medieval university textbooks, taught globe earth along with proofs for that position.  The were the same proofs used for the Greek concentric sphere model and do not make any sense with your alleged "scriptural" model.  They gave detailed descriptions of what they were talking about.  Sphere means sphere.  St. Thomas describes various meanings of "firmament" that he holds as compatible with Scripture in the Summa: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm.  These include a firmament which is a sphere and in which were placed the stars, a sphere which encompassed the spherical earth, like in the Greek model.  Accepting the existence of a firmament does not necessarily lead to belief in flat earth and it did not in the case of St. Thomas.

Doctors of the Church, St. Thomas and St. Bede, accepted the teaching of the Church Fathers, St. Augustine and St. Basil, that Scripture is silent on the shape of the earth.  They turned to Greek science for the answer to that question.  And we know they were right to do so because Pope Leo later taught this in an encyclical.  He even included St. Basil's point that Scripture that appears to speak of the earth having a shape should be understood figuratively. This is magisterial teaching.  (Which you are apparently disobeying.)

You can pretend that I am being a modernist and a feminist, but it is clear that I am following the teaching of Fathers, Doctors and Popes.  And do you claim that all the many trads who believe in spherical earth geocentrism are modernists?  This is a position that appeals to trads because it is the traditional Catholic position, not because trads are modernists.  Your position is indefensible with logic and so you turn to personal attacks.  You lack evidence and sound arguments and so you insult me.  None of this convinces people who are sincerely seeking Catholic truth.

 If you want to say, "I believe in St Bede/St Thomas' globe model"...ok, fine.  But modern science laughs at St Thomas, the same as FE.  Modern Science's "story" of the cosmos and the earth's map does not line up with either FE or St Thomas.

I came across an article fairly recently by a secular science professor who was saying that geocentrism is compatible with the theory of relativity.  Unfortunately I can't find it again and don't know enough about modern science to evaluate it.  As I recall, Robert Sugenis made a similar argument.  I've never looked into it (not interested in this aspect) so I can't say much about it.  But I have the impression this line of reasoning could be developed by someone with enough expertise.  

And we know they were right to do so because Pope Leo later taught this in an encyclical.  He even included St. Basil's point that Scripture that appears to speak of the earth having a shape should be understood figuratively. This is magisterial teaching.  (Which you are apparently disobeying.)

I was wondering when you were going to being up Pope Leo's encyclical, and claim that we are being disobedient. When all else fails, you bring this up. A woman who has a degree from a Modernist "university" believes that we are being disobedient. Why would a woman even want a degree in theology, unless it is to teach and have control over men? 

I think determining what constitutes "scriptural facts" should be left to experts who know how to apply Providentissimus Deus.

  Scripture is to be interpreted literally, as a rule.  In exceptions, the Church has told us that certain passages are symbolic.  But the vast majority of Scripture is to be taken literally.  In absence of any Church commentary, then the passage is literal.

Modernists want to spread the lie that Scripture is more symbolic/allegorical than it is. 

  Scripture is to be interpreted literally, as a rule.  In exceptions, the Church has told us that certain passages are symbolic.  But the vast majority of Scripture is to be taken literally.  In absence of any Church commentary, then the passage is literal.

In this case, however, there is Church commentary.  Pope Leo wrote "they [the inspired authors of Scripture] did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time..."

Pope Leo wrote "they [the inspired authors of Scripture] did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time..."

So you're saying that EVERY instance in Scripture where something natural is described, then it's figurative.    That's not what Pope Leo meant.  

So you're saying that EVERY instance in Scripture where something natural is described, then it's figurative.    That's not what Pope Leo meant. 

Of course not.  For specific applications we turn to the Church.  The Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pope Pius X wrote a lot on this subject.  (This PBC was not like the current body carrying that name, but actually worked with the pope to ensure orthodox interpretation of Scripture.)