The universe cannot be geo.  Geo refers to earth.  Geocentric means earth centered, so the universe has little to do with the term except that it means the sun and stars move, not the earth.

If we live on a ball, the word up doesn't mean up, as above, but it means out toward space in every direction... including down.  In other words, people live in contradiction to what is, by what they believe to be true...and that is based on their relative thinking, produced by their living on a ball.

Interesting, but I am not particularly disturbed the notion that up might be a different direction depending on where you're at on the earth.

Another Flat Earther who ignores Church teaching on how to understand Scripture.

Why do you disparage me, referring to me as a Flat Earther as though it were the stupiest thing ever? Do you realize that the saints, Fathers, Doctors, and ancients like Moses and Enoch taught earth is flat and stationary?  

I am referring to you as a Flat Earther because you believe the earth is flat.  It did not occur to me that you would take it as a term of disparagement. I was under the impression that some of you used this term about yourselves. What is a neutral term for referring to the proponents of a flat earth?

As I have said, there was never a consensus among Catholics that the earth was flat.  It was an opinion of some of the Early Church Fathers.  Others disagreed.  After that time, a consensus develop that the earth is a globe and that has been the view of Catholics (including Saints, Doctors, and popes) for most of our history.

I'm wondering how it didn't occur to you that I would take it as a term of disparagement when you said: Flat Earther who ignores Church teaching on how to understand Scripture.  
As if being flat earth means I ignore teachings on how to understand scripture. I understood exactly what you were saying.
In fact, in understanding scripture we find the literal sense was long ago underscored by St. Thomas Aquinas in his recognition that "all the senses are founded on one—the literal—from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory.”

To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they 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, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

So, when scripture says: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. - Genesis 1:6   and
Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. - Psalms 148:4

And when scripture says:  "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in" Is. 40:22

And scripture says: Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain. - Psalms 104:2

So when the literal sense of scripture denies pagan notion of outer space above earth, but tells us there's water above the dome, we better believe it.  And when it describes the heavens like a tent, which could never encompass a ball, but the literal sense would be the common notion of a tent, then we better believe it.  And when it says the heavens are stretched like a curtain, something also incompatible with a ball, then we better believe it.

But again, I was not the first, or only Catholic to recognize that scripture is a flat earth book.  This is a fraction of the flat earth references in scripture.  And interestingly, NOT ONE scripture reference is reasonably compatible with a ball.  

This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously. No less earnestly do We inculcate obedience at the present day to the counsels and exhortations which he, in his day, so wisely enjoined.

St. Thomas obviously believed it and took it for granted that everyone else did.  There is no reason he would have been teaching about natural science since this was not his field.  It was, however, that of St. Albert.  I am unable to find an English translation of what St. Albert wrote but here it is in Latin:
That looks to me like he is teaching a spherical earth but I am hoping that someone else will translate this so you won't have to rely on me.