I agree. When someone says that something is Dogma, I take it very seriously.

As all should. There is an old quote about a "papist" gent wanting fresh dogma for breakfast.

When I saw them saying that Flatearth was Dogma I did quite a bit of research. I looked at the their arguments because I'm very skeptical of all things modern and thought maybe they had a case. After looking at all I was willing to, I realized that there isn't really anything convincing enough to change my position to a Flatearther that can't be refuted by modern science. On the Dogma end, there is absolutely nothing to prove that it is Church teaching.

Even then caution must be exercised. It is possible that there be an honest mistake about the status of a thing as you likely already know.  The really "funny" thing about these sorts of "dogmatists" is that they frequently are the ones who, tacitly or expressly, discard the other communications that bind as well. "Is it 'infallible' (irreformable)?" or even worse, "Did the pope solemnly define it while sitting in a literal chair? (okay, the literal part is a rare occurence, but you get the point) "No? Nyah nyanny boo boo, I don't have to, I'm rubber you're glue."

They isolate texts in Scripture and throw the context out. It's too bad.

"There but by the grace, and more fool you."

I've at least seen posters treat it as if it is Dogma. Whether they say it is or not is beside the point. Although, I'm pretty sure I've seen them at least imply it is Dogma or one may not be Catholic if one does not believe in it.

Yes, I guess that would have been more precise. Claiming that the fathers all or mostly taught it and that it's in Scripture would at least imply that they believe it constitutes divine revelation. While I accept what Meg said as true, maybe they didn't come out and say the word Dogma, they treat it as if it's part of our faith which to deny would make one not Catholic.

I do not dispute Geocentrism or adhere to it at least in the sense of some here. I adhere to it as Pope Benedict  XV explained it.

Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum (#4), April 20, 1921: "If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende ini una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."

The Earth is at least the Spiritual CENTER of the Universe no matter how the "cosmos" actually works.

I knew what you meant but wasn't going to be petty.
As far as that is concerned MHFM has a great article on this "http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Geocentrism.pdf
I've already argued this a bit with cassini. I don't want to waste a lot more time on this as I don't believe it has any effect on the Faith.

So this is page 6 and the flat-earthers still have no explanation for the eclipse.
.
The moon enters its first quarter in 3 hours 15 minutes.
.
Maybe the flat-earthers can explain the quarter moon, if they can't explain the eclipse.
.
But I doubt it.
.

.
Uriel? Is that the name of a demon from hell? How do you know who Uriel is? What do you believe, the Church or the Book of Enoch?
.
What Church Fathers say the moon receives 1/7 of its light energy from the sun? What units of energy did they use? Prove that Church Fathers ever mentioned any kind of units for light energy.
.
Or, which is more likely, they never used the phrase, "light energy." So you're just making this up for your continued deception and false history.
.
You of course realize your quote from "Enoch" is all fake. Enoch lived at a time long before the Gregorian Calendar which had the innovation of 28 days in February and 29 during Leap year. Besides, for someone who's all absorbed with Scripture here you are quoting from an apocryphal book.
.
But your hypocrisy doesn't end there. You have said that the sun and moon are about the same distance from the earth, with nothing to back it up.
So if the moon can be further away from the earth than the sun is, how does that make an eclipse possible?
.
Or if the sun and moon are the same distance from the earth, why don't they smash into each other instead of us seeing an eclipse?
.
Or is the eclipse what we see when the sun crashes into the moon?
.