No, I'm not accepting anything "without even thinking about it".  I'm merely disputing that the Fathers or Church "taught" (as you keep saying) anything about flat earth.  All we have is the Church's condemnation of heliocentrism.  Everything else are opinions.  I'll keep looking at the scientific data, but there's no evidence whatsoever that the Fathers or the Church taught flat earth.

Just because they didn't call it "flat earth", doesn't mean they didn't teach it. Cosmas Indiocopleustes' book "Christian Topography" written in 550 AD shows that there was a full blown argument between pagans and the Catholics on the subject.  The book shows the monk Cosmas arguing on behalf of the flat earth against the ridiculous notions of the pagans' moving spheres.  That alone tells us what former generations believed.  As shown in statements throughout this and other threads, other Fathers also describe the earth to be a circuмscribed collection of land standing in the midst of the seas above which is a dome.  And above the celestial dome is more water.  And under the dome the sun, moon and stars revolve. That earth is like a two story house, with heaven the future realm, above us, as Cosmas, Severian and Methodius taught, all based on Moses' account, which is based on scripture.  And that hell is under the earth.  The Fathers also denied earth was a globe as St. John Chrysostom and St. Jerome and others make arguments against it.  Even Protestant historians support all this, chronicled by Andrew Dickenson White in his famous book, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom."
By the time Galileo came around, the argument had taken a decidedly scientific turn and the Church stepped in to say that heliocentrism was at odds with scripture, but only addressed the movements of earth and sun. Like I said before, this doesn't necessarily mean earth is a globe because the flatness was not in question per se, but rather, the movements of earth and stationary sun. Though the information from Christendom is admittedly scarce, probably due to preconceived notions and language difficulties, there is a point at which science and mathematics assist in recognizing the impossibility that earth is a globe.  The Church being totally reasonable, does not contradict Scripture or reason, naturally, which is why She condemned heliocentrism. By the same argument, familiarity with scripture proves it is a flat earth book, something lost on the casual observer. Further, because heliocentrism is admittedly promoted by Pythagoras and Copernicus and all pagans, namely, earth is a moving sphere, and that modern science and Freemasonic NASA have gone to great lengths to keep the Copernican spheres in the minds of men, it also follows that the entire pagan model is at odds with truth.  My intentions here are to seek other Catholics interested in peeling back the layers of this onion, not to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. I don't mind questions or challenges, I'm learning too.           

Read my text again.  I do not dispute that most of them thought the earth was flat.  What I'm disputing is whether they actually taught it as if it were a teaching of the Church ... vs. their own private opinion.

Ok, but the Fathers were in agreement with Moses, Enoch and Scripture, so why would that make it "their opinion" only?  Especially knowing that Copernicus is credited for re-making the earth into a globe?  What about knowing the globe belongs to heliocentrism and the pagans defended the condemned model throughout the centuries? That those Catholics who expounded on such things, or argued such things, always tied their beliefs back to Scripture? Cosmas Indiocopleustes expounds extensively with dozens of scriptural references weaving a beautiful explanation of how the tabernacle (and by extension the form of a church) is a type of the earth, a microcosm, perfectly integrated according to Scripture and in complete agreement with the Fathers that predated him.  Fascinating that the external design of Catholic Churches of the past reflect this flat earth "type".  And fascinating that these descriptions of earth's foundation is like the Church's foundation, earth's pillars are like Church pillars and the firmament is like the dome so often seen in churches.  I could go on and on, but the fact that I can is testament to the truth of this, because it works and speaks of things familiar to Catholic minds, even if they were unaware of the symbiotic nature of all of this with flat earth. 
And all this was done behind the Church's back? By good men? Without approbation? C'mon.   
The only thing that prevents knowing is not to delve. There is no way that this amazingly integrated picture of reality is the mere opinion of a few good men laced through the centuries in defense of Scripture but at the same time, not the Church's teaching. The purpose of the relationship of creation with mans' worship of God in Churches before the tabernacle with the "shew bread" are shockingly detailed and what appears to be divinely orchestrated Catholic exegeses that just so happens to fit perfectly with the 1633 condemnations of the counterfeit model of creation.

Ok, but the Fathers were in agreement with Moses, Enoch and Scripture, so why would that make it "their opinion" only?  Especially knowing that Copernicus is credited for re-making the earth into a globe?  What about knowing the globe belongs to heliocentrism and the pagans defended the condemned model throughout the centuries? That those Catholics who expounded on such things, or argued such things, always tied their beliefs back to Scripture? Cosmas Indiocopleustes expounds extensively with dozens of scriptural references weaving a beautiful explanation of how the tabernacle (and by extension the form of a church) is a type of the earth, a microcosm, perfectly integrated according to Scripture and in complete agreement with the Fathers that predated him.  Fascinating that the external design of Catholic Churches of the past reflect this flat earth "type".  And fascinating that these descriptions of earth's foundation is like the Church's foundation, earth's pillars are like Church pillars and the firmament is like the dome so often seen in churches.  I could go on and on, but the fact that I can is testament to the truth of this, because it works and speaks of things familiar to Catholic minds, even if they were unaware of the symbiotic nature of all of this with flat earth.  
And all this was done behind the Church's back? By good men? Without approbation? C'mon.    
The only thing that prevents knowing is not to delve. There is no way that this amazingly integrated picture of reality is the mere opinion of a few good men laced through the centuries in defense of Scripture but at the same time, not the Church's teaching. The purpose of the relationship of creation with mans' worship of God in Churches before the tabernacle with the "shew bread" are shockingly detailed and what appears to be divinely orchestrated Catholic exegeses that just so happens to fit perfectly with the 1633 condemnations of the counterfeit model of creation.

You've provided a lot of useful information above. I only hope that others here will be read in its entirety.

Indeed, why would the Fathers, as is described above, who were in agreement with Moses, scripture, and Enoch, make "their opinion" only? That's a very relevant question, IMO.

Did those Fathers even think in terms of..."Well, this is my opinion only?" I don't think that they did. They just told it as they saw it. They described Truth as they saw it.

Today, in the midst of a Crisis in the Church, it seems that we often have to differentiate between what is opinion, and what is not. But did the Fathers really lay much emphasis on their writings as being just another opinion? And did the Church really differentiate so much back then?

So we have a few here arguing the opinions of some Doctors while ignoring objective reality, and a 'Catholic' promoting the liceity of heliocentrism.

Pope Pius VII decreed that Catholics were permitted to accept heliocentrism.  Could you explain the reasoning behind saying that Catholics are not permitted to accept heliocentrism.

.
Anyone here or anywhere else who thinks his defense or promotion of the "flat-earth" is doing good for the Church of Christ is only deceiving himself.
.
All you are accomplishing is further damage. And there hs been a lot of damage in recent years.
.
Look at the mockery Francis is making of the Church; well, flat-earthers are doing the same thing.
.
Flat-earthers do just as much harm to the Church as Bishop of Rome Francis is doing.
.
Why so? 
.
This is now the first day of the First Quarter moon, which started last night at 1:30 am in the Western USA.
.
Anyone who wants to observe first hand what the shape of the earth is, all they have to do is look at the moon today.
.
The reality we see every month in the sky when the moon makes its first and last quarter phases shows us what the shape of the earth is.
.
And it makes absolutely no difference whether anyone in the past has said one thing or another about it, because we can see today for ourselves what the truth is, by observing the reality before us twice each month. And if you want to include the Full moon phase, that makes 3 times a month.
.
Anyone with two ounces of common sense can see this, and to ignore it puts you outside the sphere of credibility.
.

Pope Pius VII decreed that Catholics were permitted to accept heliocentrism.  Could you explain the reasoning behind saying that Catholics are not permitted to accept heliocentrism.

The Modernism well underway in 1820 does not supercede the 1633 condemnation.
Under your fallacious logic the Mass of 1969 would supercede the Mass of all time.

The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

.
Wrong. The horizon does not always appear perfectly flat around the observer, especially at higher altitudes. Amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage cannot show reliable observations at great distances so they are useless. NASA is irrelevant, but it's your favorite whipping boy. Duuuh.
.

The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

.
Wrong, again. The horizon never "rises" to the eye level of the observer. There would be no surveying or construction possible if that were the case. So you are utterly ignorant of land surveying or construction practices, obviously. Why don't you try posting on a topic about which you actually know something, for a change?
.

The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.

.
Wrong again. That makes 0 for 3. You ought to go home where you belong because you keep striking out here.
.
The natural physics of water (about which you know nothing) is to seek the confines of its container. Whichever way it is free to move, it will, even if unrestricted by air pressure which is why it evaporates instantly into a vacuum. The earth is not an extended flat plane as you and your wimpy cohorts repeat again and again like the Arian heretics did long ago. Any chemistry student quickly discovers that water will always seek to fill the container in which it is poured, regardless of its shape, and it will even go out of its apparent bounds of surface when exposed to heat and/or low ambient pressure. But you never took Chemistry 101 so you wouldn't know anything about the basics.
.