I gave an exact quote.  It was from paragraph 3.  Anyone can look it up and see it there.

but like I said, unclear.

but like I said, unclear.

How is it unclear?  What other way could it be understood than what I am saying?

They did not want to say the earth is a globe.  It does not matter for salvation whether the earth is a globe or not.  They wanted to explain a basic principle for understanding Scripture.  
Scripture does not teach the earth is a globe.  Scripture does not teach the earth is flat.  Scripture is not intended to teach on the subject either way because it is a matter of physical science.  This is perfectly clear in the quotes I gave.  There is nothing vague about it.

Prove Scripture does not say earth is flat.  You must prove that or do not say that.  Because you clearly do not know what Scripture says. 

Again Jaynek tells a big lie: Pope Leo XIII says no such thing as she claims.
Read it for yourself,  especially paragraph 15:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

Pope Leo says exactly what I said he did.  It is in paragraph 18:

 There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known."(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

Paragraph 15, which is about taking Scripture literally, means "literally" in the theological sense in which it is opposed to spiritual or allegorical senses.  It means in the sense which the author intended.  It does not mean "literally" in the way one uses it in English class to distinguish from figuratively.  

Not possible.  You're saying the Church was wrong to condemn the pagan model.  The model that is credited for ushering in modernism, evolution, false science and the model pagan NASA holds to this day.  You are the same ball of contradiction the globe is because you are married to that pagan model.  The Church cannot decree a condemnation and then deny she said it.  That is ridiculous.  She might permit study of a model She condemned, which is a separate issue, but She cannot deny Herself. Not only can She not do such a thing because that means She was in error when She said it, the Church certainly did not accept the heliocentric model because a Pope removed associated teachings from the Index.  There is a hierarchy of teachings and the action of removal from the Index is trumped by the metaphysical truths taught in Genesis and upheld by the Church in 1633.  You have no proof otherwise.  And you have no proof that earth is a sphere, except by your pagan science.      

I started a thread recently called "Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him" in which I explained just how this position is compatible with the later withdrawal of the condemnation by papal decree.  All your objections are addressed in my posts there.

I don't care if the earth is a sphere or not.  I care that you are misunderstanding/opposing Church teaching on interpreting Scripture.  A correct understanding of Scripture is central to our faith, while the shape of the earth is completely irrelevant.

#35:

"What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammer and philology alone, nor solely by the context: the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archeology, ethnology and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period were likely to use, and in fact did use."

------

The above quote seems important in that it says that we must use what historical means that are available, including science, to determine what the ancient authors of scripture of the East were intending. Indeed, we have the historical evidence of the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe (which included a flat earth), which is a good aid in determining what the authors of Genesis were intending.

And we have the commentary of St.  Jerome, who was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, who wrote that the earth could not be a sphere. He knew the Old Testament very well.

Exactly.  The literal sense means the intent.  Various popes and Doctors have taught that the intent is not to teach about physical science.

Wrong. The passage doesn't say that we can't interpret the bible in terms of physical science, or that we cannot view anything regarding the physical universe.

You didn't read the rest of what I wrote. We must look to historical references to determine what the ancient authors were intending. THAT'S what the passage was speaking to. We look to the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe, which lines up with Genesis.

If you are not comfortable with using scripture to demonstrate a flat earth, that's up to you. But we will be doing as such, even in the midst of your continual accusations.

God created the Heaven and Earth. It is not irrelevant to our Faith.