I'm not sure I buy this anymore.  More I look at it, the more it seems like propaganda mean to promote the notion that anyone who was anyone since the time of the Ancient Greeks believed in the ball earth, and only uneducated ignoramuses believed the earth was Flat.

And anyway, even if it was true that most people believed in the globe since the greeks, what of it? 

Of course, it does not prove that the earth is a globe.  That is obvious.  It does, however, make it highly implausible that Church condemnations of Copernicism should be understood to include the proposition that the earth is a globe.  (As a general rule, Church condemnations should be understood to apply only to that which is explicitly stated.)

(As a general rule, Church condemnations should be understood to apply only to that which is explicitly stated.)

This is a stretch. Some Catholics believe abortion is wrong, except in the case where there's danger to the life of the mother, and they believe it is justified. The Ten Commandments don't explicitly say anything about abortion, just murder, yet the Church rightly teaches not just qualified abortion in most cases, but all abortion is wrong.  It's all there in context even before you search docuмents to find specifics.

To suggest that the condemnations of Galileo were only about the movement of the earth while the Galileo summary written at the time shows that Church authorities condemned the Pythagorean/Copernican/heliocentric model entirely, and the movement specifically, we can all see, they weren't trying to retain some of it by only specifying movement.  One would absolutely need to prove they did not include the globe since the globe is necessary to the pagan doctrine so soundly condemned by description in the summary as well as contrary to the beliefs of the Fathers and Scripture.  Just because you don't recognize Scripture describes a flat earth doesn't mean the Fathers didn't think so.  In fact, it's been proven here on CI many times over. 

I agree that these were the correct beliefs at the time he said them. St. Robert Bellarmine, however, wrote to Foscarini:

. . I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false.

But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.

St. Robert believed that the Church could reevaluate her interpretation of Scripture if science could actually demonstrate that this understanding did not match observable reality.  He did not think that Galileo had demonstrated his theories to a point that warranted such a reevaluation.  I definitely agree with him on that. 

Given that the Church removed her condemnation of heliocentrism in the early 1800s and took the banned books on the subject off the Index, I suspect this means that she considered that the science had then reached a point that did warrant a new interpretation of Scripture. I think that Pope Leo explained these interpretive principles in Providentissimus Deus.  I know nowhere near enough about science to have a personal opinion on that, but I trust the Church's judgment.