You talk, you claim, but you do not cite, source, or quote.  So basically, we're relying on your opinion.  Remember, the pagan globalists of at least the past 500 are in question here, along with the modern ones destroying with their nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.  What's fascinating in these threads is that I quote scripture, Popes, Saints, and Catholics, with sources, and I get hammered with every kind of detraction.  You post sentences, without sources, without explanation, and... crickets.  Sometimes, when looking for truth in murky setting, its the little things.  

You quote them but interpret them contrary to how the Church teaches you should.  These quotes do not show that you are taking a Catholic position.  They are showing the opposite.  You reject Church teaching on how to understand Scripture and the Fathers.  Your underlying assumptions are wrong so virtually everything you post is wrong.  You are not proving what you think your are proving with all your quotes.  You are showing yourself to be a bad Catholic.  This is not detraction.  It is fraternal correction for your own good.  You need to repent.

I am about to take a break for Advent so I probably won't see any responses to this until I come back.

.
Do you want sources?
.
They won't be Scriptural, so forget that.
.
I know that's all you'll accept, so why bother.
.
Where does the Bible define the speed of light or the colors of the rainbow?
.
Tell us where the Bible lists in order the philosophical categories of being.
.
Where, oh where does Scripture pronounce on the relative electrical conductivity of silicon and gold?
.
These things are observable with our 5 senses and with the use of human reason.
.
Just like the sphericity of the earth is knowable by same.
.

This is true, but unfortunately for Ms. Ding Dong Ditch the fathers of the Church who actually taught on the subject are in fact, unanimous.

True.  But without a single contrary teaching, literally zero Catholic teaching that earth is a globe, the fe saints' unanimity with scripture has some teeth here.  Beyond that, we have the science, the math, the reason, the motive for the lie...plus, the converse teachings are pagan, ridiculous and untenable.  
One thing must be fleshed out here.  Heliocentrism is a model that includes a globe earth jetting through space in 4 different directions, that stars are worlds, and that the sun is relatively stationary in relation to earth, while the whole enchilada blasts through space in a 500,000 mile per hour from a Big Bang.
Geocentrism teaches earth is flat and stationary with the heavenly lights, sun, moon and stars, which keep time, tell seasons and as scripture says, "for signs", as well as lighting the skies for earth from under the dome that separates heaven from earth.  
Somewhere along the way, people became confused and have created a sub-model hybrid of Heliocentrism and Geocentrism where earth is a stationary ball hanging in space.  
The most recent characters promoting this hybrid are Robert Sungenis and Rick Delano, both Catholic.  Rick Delano is a very staunch anti-bod'er, as well, so I have every respect for that.  But they are wrong about earth being a globe.  I've written a very telling article showing that Mr. Sungenis is a closet Heliocentric and that his entire premise is sourced from pagans and pagan science.  
Here's the link: http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t103-critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth
For further Catholic information on flat earth, the above link is just a small portion of information available on this site:
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/

But, to my point, did any of the Fathers teach that flat earth is a matter of doctrine and, more particularly, that it was teaching handed down to them from the Apostles?  That is key.  Just because they agree on something doesn't make it dogmatic consensus.  Remember that the Church Fathers are not a rule of faith unto themselves and are significant to the extent that they can give an indication in their unanimity that something was revealed and transmitted from the Apostles.  But agreement by itself doesn't prove that the point in question was handed down from the Apostles.