The Church condemned heliocentrism, to which the globe belongs.  Being condemned as a model, all aspects of that model, unless singled out, also remain condemned.  You cannot pick and choose.  You cannot prove otherwise.

the Tychonic system was very influential in the late 16th and 17th centuries. In 1616, during the Galileo affair, the papal Congregation of the Index banned all books advocating the Copernican system, including works by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and other authors until 1758.^[27][28] The Tychonic system was an acceptable alternative as it explained the observed phases of Venus with a static Earth. Jesuit astronomers in China used it extensively, as did a number of European scholars. Jesuits (such as Clavius, Christoph Grienberger, Christoph Scheiner, Odo van Maelcote) were the most efficient agent for the diffusion of the Tychonic system. It was chiefly through the influence of the Jesuit scientists that the Roman Catholic Church adopted the Tychonic system, over a period of nine years (from 1611 to 1620), in a process directly prompted by the Galilean telescopic discoveries.^[29]

The ardent anti-heliocentric French astronomer Jean-Baptiste Morin devised a Tychonic planetary model with elliptical orbits published in 1650 in a simplified, Tychonic version of the Rudolphine Tables.^[94] Some acceptance of the Tychonic system persisted through the 17th century and in places until the early 18th century; it was supported (after a 1633 decree about the Copernican controversy) by "a flood of pro-Tycho literature" of Jesuit origin. Among pro-Tycho Jesuits, Ignace Pardies declared in 1691 that it was still the commonly accepted system, and Francesco Blanchinus reiterated that as late as 1728.^[95] Persistence of the Tychonic system, especially in Catholic countries, has been attributed to its satisfaction of a need (relative to Catholic doctrine) for "a safe synthesis of ancient and modern".

When providing proof, heliocentric or other pagan references are useless because that begs the question.  Also, since the Church condemned heliocentrism of which the globe is a part, you'd have to prove the Church didn't include the globe in Her condemnation.

People giving historical accounts of the beliefs of Christendom are not a priori going to make mistakes because they are not geocentrists.  It is not fair to assume without evidence that they are biased.  There are countless reference works, from a wide variety of perspectives, all saying similar things about the dominance of the Ptolemaic model.

Even on this forum there are members who believe in geocentrism without believing the earth is flat.  It is absurd to claim as you do that the only possible models are flat, geocentric or globe, heliocentric.

The condemnation of heliocentrism was very specific in what it condemned.  It described the problematic ideas.  If you would like to look it up in a source you trust, you can see that it says nothing about a problem with spherical earth.

 People need to know they are being lied to!  It matters to me.  Now, if you believe the moving ball earth, you are at odds with the Church.  

Look at the wording of the condemnation.  It does not even use the word heliocentrism.  It condemns two specific propositions:

You can read the whole thing and you will see that nothing other than those two propositions are condemned.  There is nothing in there about spherical earth and that means it is not condemned.  The Tychonian model (which included a sperical earth) was clearly acceptable to the Church.

At the time this was issued, almost no educated Catholic had believed in a flat earth for over a thousand years.  What some (not all) of the Church Fathers believed is irrelevant.  Doctors of the Church like St. Bede, St. Albert, and St. Thomas had no difficulty in reconciling a spherical earth with Scripture.  The exegetical principles involved have been explained to you many times.

St. Bede St. Albert and St. Thomas did not teach earth is a globe. They may have believed it, but they didn't teach it.  The Fathers that taught about the form of the earth clearly taught the earth is flat.     

St. Thomas only mentioned it in passing but both St. Bede and St. Albert explicitly taught that the earth is a sphere. Opinion of the Fathers was split.  Gregory of Nyssa, for example, taught that the earth is a sphere.