Without having read the article yet, Wikipedia is of course suspicious. Also "mundi" means world, not earth, right? I think this because of the common translation of "who takest away the sins of the world". It could be argued that world means the whole universe, but I'd have to read his teaching to be sure of what he meant.

THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.

FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.

And it is very clear in context that they were using the Ptolemaic model and not a "snow globe".

If a valid Pope, said that we as Catholic had to believe the earth was flat, then I would follow?  If a valid Pope, said that the earth was a sphere (not meaning snow globe, meaning ball), would you follow?  Or would you school him on how he misinterpreted something and needed to reconsider?

What do you mean a Pope "said"?  Popes can "say" lots of things.  So, the more you think you're making some kind of point, the more murky you make it.  Obviously if a legitimate Pope dogmatically taught that the earth is round, I would accept that ... but it won't happen, since the rotundity of the earth is not something that was revealed in Sacred Scripture or Tradition, nor can it be inferred therefrom.

You're the one who needs some schooling and to keep silent per St. Paul.

The "mundi" of the title does refer to the universe, so you are right about that.  However, he does include a description of a spherical earth in the first chapter.  Here is an English translation: https://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm



These are standard proofs for the Ptolemaic model.  Whether or not one thinks they are convincing proofs, they establish the influence of the Ptolemaic model in medieval Europe.

Since the geocentric Ptolemaic astronomy was the basis of traditional astrology, the Sphere of Sacrobosco was a key introductory text for astrologers covering the basics of the celestial circles, poles, meridian, ecliptic, the Zodiac and its signs and the movement of the planets." --Wikipedia

In case you're inclined to argue, this means that Ptolemaic astronomy was not acceptable to the Church because the root of globe theory was pagan astrology.

It does not mean that.  This quote says that astrologers  based their understanding of astronomy on Ptolemy, not that Ptolemy based his ideas on astrology.  You have it backwards.

How do you explain Pope Nicholas V commissioning a translation of Ptolemy's work if it was so unacceptable to the Church?

You are right. Several good Catholic saints and Fathers of the Church patiently considered the globe theory for the sake of science and truth. Ultimately, (after study or over time) the saints and Fathers found the globe contrary to Scripture because it was not represented in the words, but based in idolatry.  You say, "it does not mean that."  Are you sure?  We know that the geocentric flat earth cosmology fits perfectly with Scripture when the pagan globe theory only promotes globe-birthing idols like Gaia and Pachamama.