Jaynek has been shown to have zero understanding of exegesis,  and lamely argues a la Bill Clinton what the meaning of is, is.
She is not at all credible.

She really does cling to the ball like plastic wrap.

Indeed Meg, God created Heaven and Earth and described it for us.  Jaynek's argument is with God.

Agreed.

We reiterate this when we say our daily prayers..."I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.."

Fr. Chad Ripperger has an excellent rebuttal (by general consensus of philosophers) to your notion that it doesn't matter what shape the earth is.  

"People's denial of the knowledge of God, or that you can come to a knowledge of God, is rooted in certain metaphysical problems in relationship to reality. The common teaching among philosophers is, what your cosmology is, how you view the physical world, the world around you, will determine what your understanding of who God is.  Due to modern philosophers, People's understanding of the real world has degraded their ability to actually understand things about God by the natural light of reason."  

Quote found at about minute 5 and a half.  
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ripperger+metaphysics%2C+evolution%2C+divorce

Brilliant! 
"How you view the physical world determines your understanding of God."
That gives me joy.

Scripture may very well use language that suggests the earth is flat.  But this does not mean it is teaching that the earth is flat because, as the Church tells us, Scripture is not intended to teach about physical science. You are drawing incorrect conclusions from what Scripture says because you are not taking its intent into consideration.

And I could speak about the flat open plains of the central United States even if I believe that the earth is a sphere.  Use of the term "flat" doesn't necessarily have an absolute meaning but could be a relative term.  Even if Scripture doesn't intend to teach about it, there can be no error in Scripture.  But terms can be used in different ways.  I can say that the sun moved across the sky and that does not by itself mean I'm a geocentrist (even though I personally am).  Motion is relative, and so are various other descriptive terms that are not necessarily used in an absolute way.  But let's be very careful with the "Scripture does not intend to teach about ..." terminology, for the modernists use the same expression to explain why there are historical "errors" (in their reckoning) in Scripture.  While Scripture does not intend to teach about history per se, there can be no historical errors in Scripture.  Period.  When Scripture refers to the "vault" of the heavens, that could be a metaphorical term rather than the scientific description of a physical structure.  Scripture could say something like, "And Jesus said..." but the words that follow don't necessarily have to be direct quotes (in our modern understanding) but could be paraphrases about the essence of what He said.  That's not an error but just a different understanding of how the authors of Sacred Scripture made citations (direct vs. indirect quotations).

So we have to walk a fine line between being too slavishly literal and absolute on the one hand and attributing even historical or scientific error to Scripture.

And I could speak about the flat open plains of the central United States even if I believe that the earth is a sphere.  Use of the term "flat" doesn't necessarily have an absolute meaning but could be a relative term.  Even if Scripture doesn't intend to teach about it, there can be no error in Scripture.  But terms can be used in different ways.  I can say that the sun moved across the sky and that does not by itself mean I'm a geocentrist (even though I personally am).  Motion is relative, and so are various other descriptive terms that are not necessarily used in an absolute way.  But let's be very careful with the "Scripture does not intend to teach about ..." terminology, for the modernists use the same expression to explain why there are historical "errors" (in their reckoning) in Scripture.  While Scripture does not intend to teach about history per se, there can be no historical errors in Scripture.  Period.  When Scripture refers to the "vault" of the heavens, that could be a metaphorical term rather than the scientific description of a physical structure.  Scripture could say something like, "And Jesus said..." but the words that follow don't necessarily have to be direct quotes (in our modern understanding) but could be paraphrases about the essence of what He said.  That's not an error but just a different understanding of how the authors of Sacred Scripture made citations (direct vs. indirect quotations).

So we have to walk a fine line between being too slavishly literal and absolute on the one hand and attributing even historical or scientific error to Scripture.

This is a good point to make clear. It is a major theme in the encyclicals I have been quoting. Benedict XV warned about people trying to misuse the teaching in support of modernism.  We can never hold that there errors in Scripture. 

This is a good point to make clear. It is a major theme in the encyclicals I have been quoting. Benedict XV warned about people trying to misuse the teaching in support of modernism.  We can never hold that there errors in Scripture.

Who provides you with all of those quotes, Jayne?

I did research on the topic and found them in various places.

What places?