I agree. It is the depth of ignorance to say that the majority of men of the past believed in a globe earth. Most Catholics (and non-Catholics) were just trying to survive. What connection would they have to upper academia? Most of my forebears were farmers, in this country and in Europe before that. They had been farming for countless generations. They were very practical and had a lot of common sense.
I agree that the fruition of indoctrination only has come in our century, (and the last?). Before that, I would think that the average man would have thought it odd that we live on a ball, or that we all must absolutely believe that we are on a ball. But since we all now must put our faith in "science" instead of what we can observe and read in Scripture, and because the media and school system does not favor religion, we must bow to the great science religion.

I have to wonder what the professed globe earthers love more: the Church, or science?

Globe believers practice a kind of separation of Church and science, because they think the Church doesn't know anything about science simply because such knowledge is strictly outside of the scope of the Church.  That argument is similar to those who say the Church has no rights over a woman to the point she can abort her own child.  Hogwash.  The Church has a say in protecting life no matter whose body is involved. The Church also teaches that She proscribes science, not the other way around. Science cannot conflict with Scripture or it's out.  The Church gave science at least 500 years, laying low for science to prove it's case.  Now that it failed miserably in the face of modern technology as well as the ready-access to the Fathers of the Church, there now remains a good portion of Catholics caught in the modern scientism snare.  But why are they wrong when it isn't super obvious to them, or when they think that the Church has nothing to say about these things?  Because those who are informed and still scoff prefer to believe science over Scripture, the Fathers, and antiquity on the subject. The globers feign the excuse that the Church never 'technically" said earth was flat, yet all the information lines up for all to see--if they so choose, of course.  The Fathers, Catholic scholars, Scripture, the Galileo Affair, even an Index against books came out against the heliocentric model many times in a get-a-clue manner.  The proofs are myriad: The enemies of the Church have held and still hold the science of the globe throughout the centuries. Cosmas explained the parallels of foundational liturgy with the foundation of the earth. Enoch explained how the cosmos works over the plane. Scripture describes a flat earth. Saints since have reiterated all of this. Globers still scoff: "Why hasn't God been more open about such an important teaching?"  Answer: Because God permits heresy to manifest His glory.  God speaks in "parables" so that in seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear.  Mathew 13:13 Mark 4:12 Isaiah 6:9 and Luke 8:10 
For those who scoff and refuse to hear Scripture or the Fathers, whatever.  While you do that, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and its globalist scientism is recreating a new paradigm of evolution, Big Bangism, global warming, resource controls, one world government, and a new religion. Scripture tells us that most will follow it.  Here it's all happening in our lifetime.  And yet they still scoff.  So, if you're one who doesn't like what is said here, try something other than scoffing. Ask questions, challenge respectfully, produce evidence to the contrary, but scoffing and condemnation is a waste of time. 

Proverbs 22:10

10 Cast out the scoffer, and contention shall go out with him, and quarrels and reproaches shall cease.
 
This has never been a condemnation of those who have respect for modern science, but a call for Catholics to scrutinize more carefully what they are all too quick to condemn and have never fully considered.  For those set in their beliefs, no biggie... because defending God's truth compels those who got the clue to continue to shed that light of truth no matter what the cost.

I doubt that she knowingly worships the devil, but he must be pleased with the false Catholicism that she tries to spread.  Real Catholicism does not even teach flat earth at all, while in her version she makes it the main focus.

I don't worship the devil knowingly or unknowingly.  Good call.

Science is not outside the scope of the Church.  Science is properly the servant of the Church.  The key ideas of science in the West were developed by devout Catholics who believed that reason would never conflict with faith.  They used reason to understand the natural world in order to honour the Creator of the world.  They took the science of pagans and searched through it for what was compatible with faith and incorporated into their own thinking. They made observations and they used reason.  And their ultimate goal was the glory of God.

There is no separation between Church and science.  The Church has the ability and authority to set limits on science, as she did in Humani Generis.  If the shape of the earth were important to our faith, the Church could have taught about it.  But it is not important so she did not.  St. Basil, St. Augustine, and St. John Damascene all said that this was not important to our faith and the Church has always continued this teaching of the Fathers.

PS.  Cosmas is a random monk and has no authority; Enoch is apocryphal and has no authority; and the condemnation of heliocentrism proves nothing about spherical earth which was a feature common to bothe geocentrism and heliocentrism.  

Both Enoch and Cosmas have more authority about what's true than all pagans put together.

Both Enoch and Cosmas have more authority about what's true than all pagans put together.

No they don't.  A pagan very well might say something true about science or math or philosophy.  We test their words against Church teaching and physical reality to find out if they are true.  And we need to do the exact same thing with Enoch and Cosmas.  There is no reason to automatically accept anything from these sources as true.

Everything I post is from Catholic sources.  You really don't post from Catholic sources but from NASA or modern science sources.  Consider the source.    

.
Everything you post you've made up or get it from heretics, like your buddy Truth is Transitory. 
Your sources have zero credibility. Flat-earthism is you golden-calf false-god, according to St. Paul.
I think he knew what he was talking about. Yeah, check. He knew. 

.
You said that Copernicus worshiped the devil. Provide your source.
Prove what you said or take it back, otherwise it's just as accurate to say YOU worship the devil.

Here are some quotes about Copernicus' connection to the occult/ Kabbalah /alchemy.  His writings themselves reveal quite a lot.  


In De revolutionibus 1:10, mystic imagery presents the universe as a beautiful temple lit by the great, all-seeing lantern at its centre. The obvious parallel is to the neo-Platonic thinkers of Italy, where Copernicus was a student from 1496 to 1503, who were rediscovering their own versions of the wisdom of sages like Hermes Trismegistus and recalibrating the occult arts. A good deal of this work, while not strictly illicit, was certainly quite risqué, so it is a strange thing to be invoking if Copernicus really was carefully trying to avoid treading on the toes of any theologians.http://jameshannam.com/copernicus.htm
It is clear from De revolutionibus that the reader is supposed to view mathematical demonstration as the dominant argument. The book claims it is intended for people who can follow this mathematical demonstration for themselves. Few could do so, which means that few would be able to tell that Copernicus had not succeeded in the way that he implies or that some of the techniques he used, like the ‘Tūsī Couple’, do not require a heliocentric hypothesis to improve the model of the heavens. This makes his physical arguments very important because they had to show that a moving Earth is not absurd and imply that the proof was to be found in the technical detail. This implies that the details of his solution to the very difficult problem of producing a heliocentric model are as much exercises in concealment as enlightenment. Moreover, Copernicus joined the humanists in setting up mathematics as an authority able to counter the traditional disciplines and so included himself among the select people able to make pronouncements on astronomy. His work was only to be judged by his peers.
After a close study of his arguments, the unanswered question is why Copernicus hit on the idea of a heliocentric system in the first place. He was contradicting all the respected authorities of his time while trying to enthrone mathematics as a further font of truth that could be believed. We can surely take it for granted that this was not as a result of his combing the ancient writers in search of enlightenment – especially as he read into them what he wanted to find. Neither was it the innate mathematical superiority of the model that attracted him as it was not any more accurate and not much simpler than the Ptolemaic alternative. His own stated reasons for wanting to improve the symmetry and elegance of the model were tripped up by the necessary mathematical consequences of needing a fit to the observed data. It seems as if he started from a simple archetype to which he found he had to add more and more convoluted enhancements. The original elegance of his solution lived on only in his imagination.
======================================
A Kabbala site called Revealing Science of God says: “It should be noted that the 16th century also witnessed perhaps the first scientific verification of Kabbalist teaching with the book written by Copernicus. The Kabbalists never taught the Earth to be the center of the universe, and Copernicus’ discovery proved them right.”
========================================
"Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution [i.e., the idea that 'the earth moves and turns'] spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...It is reported that Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance...It is thus a small step to total rejection of the Bible and the precepts of morality and law taught therein." - Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "Why Geocentricity?"

No they don't.  A pagan very well might say something true about science or math or philosophy.  We test their words against Church teaching and physical reality to find out if they are true.  And we need to do the exact same thing with Enoch and Cosmas.  There is no reason to automatically accept anything from these sources as true.

When in doubt, the Godly authority always takes precedence.  Otherwise, a choice is in favor of error.  Pagans can speak truth at times, but when push comes to shove, choosing their ruminations over the Godly out of hand?  No bueno.  You can't possibly know that you haven't fallen for the lies Scripture warns about, that even the elect will be fooled, if that were possible.  Pretty serious warning there. You don't even question yourself or your decision to take the pagan model and skip the Scriptural one  You instantly disregarded Scripture's words in favor of pagan words in a time when deception is rampant.  Risky business.       

I've sourced every quote and Scripture passage, every Saint, Father or Catholic.  My sources include St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, Methodius, and Lactantius, and a dozen more Saints and Scriptural authorities, as well as Scripture.  So, saying my sources have zero credibility is your error.  

.
Why would you quote Lactantius regarding astronomical observations when he was ignorant of astronomy?
Does his ignorance make you feel comfortable in your ignorance too? 
Birds of a feather flocking together?
And Cosmas the devil worshiper too?