Some use citations from Enoch in support of a flat earth.  There seems to be a misunderstanding of the status of these books.

In Catholic usage, there are canonical writings (in recent centuries sometimes categorized protocanonical and deuterocanonical) and apocryphal writings.  The latter are writings with pretensions to being Scripture that have been rejected by the Church.  Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia :

... the name Apocrypha soon came to have an unfavourable signification which it still retains, comporting both want of genuineness and canonicity. These are the negative aspects of the modern application of the name; on its positive side it is properly employed only of a well defined class of literature, putting forth scriptural or quasi-scriptural pretensions, and which originated in part among the Hebrews during the two centuries preceding Christ and for a space after, and in part among Christians, both orthodox and heterodox, in the early centuries of our era.

The Church recognizes Enoch as an apocryphal book and it is listed as such later in the article.  Writings of this class do not have some sort of special weight due to their association with Scripture.  They may even be heretical.  Mormons accept Enoch as Scripture, as do some schismatics.

The canon of Scripture developed over time in the first centuries of the Church, reaching a consensus in the 4th century.  Before that time, one may find Fathers accepting writings that were later excluded and/or rejecting writings that were later included. Centuries later, the Church's authority to decide the canon of Scripture came under attack by Protestants.  At this point the canon was dogmatically decreed at the fourth session of the Council of Trent.

Treating Enoch as if it were Scripture is, in effect, going against a formally decreed dogma.  That's how seriously wrong it is. No Catholic authority gave any weight to Enoch after the point at which the Church reached her consensus on the canon. On the contrary, it was ignored so thoroughly that it disappeared for centuries.

(Protestants reject some of the canonical books, referring to the as Apocrypha, so be careful using this term with Protestants. They may misunderstand you or even think you are agreeing with them to reject Church authority.)

Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia :

The Church recognizes Enoch as an apocryphal book and it is listed as such later in the article.  Writings of this class do not have some sort of special weight due to their association with Scripture.  They may even be heretical.  Mormons accept Enoch as Scripture, as do some schismatics.

Treating Enoch as if it were Scripture is, in effect, going against a formally decreed dogma.  That's how seriously wrong it is. No Catholic authority gave any weight to Enoch after the point at which the Church reached her consensus on the canon. On the contrary, it was ignored so thoroughly that it disappeared for centuries.

.
The pertinacious zeal flat-earthers maintain for apocryphal works is noteworthy.