Scripture. Vatican I,Canons and Decrees, Chapter III: Of Faith, says:
... all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God,, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary teaching (magisterium),proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. ... ... although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason; since the same God Who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood and expounded according to the mind of the Church, or to the inventions of opinion having been taken for the verdicts of reason. We define, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false. Further, the Church, which together with the apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, lest any should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit (can.ii) Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth. (D1797-8 )
Galileo would have us believe that there is an absolute separation in Holy Scripture between matters of faith and morals and matters pertaining to the physical sciences. That such is not at all the case, Pope Benedict XV assures us in Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.

"all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God,, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary teaching (magisterium),proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
 
The Church has not proposed flat earth for belief as having been divinely revealed. There has been no solemn judgement or magisterial teaching to say this.  It is not implied by the condemnation of heliocentrism (even if that had not been later removed) because the main geocentric model of that time posited a spherical earth.

The quote from Spiritus Paraclitus warns about modernists who were misapplying the teaching of Pope Leo XIII.  Read in context, it is clear that it is not dismissing the actual teaching that I have been citing.  It is even clearer that Benedict XV, who wrote that encyclical, did not mean what you think, when one considers what he wrote in In Praeclara Summorum.  Writing of Dante's concept of the earth, the pope stated:

If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. 

Speaking of reading things in context, would you please name the catechism you cite or give a link to it.  I would like to see your quote in context.

You dishonestly left the description of the Firmament out of your list. That specifically deals with the shape and arrangement of the cosmos.

I did a cut and paste of the exact list that was in the original docuмent.  Anyone can go back in the thread and see for himself that I did not leave anything out.  This is at least the third time you have told a lie like this, in which you make a claim about something written elsewhere that is obviously untrue when checked.  You are the one who is dishonest and it discredits your fellow flat earthers that they allow your lies to go unchallenged.

If you can't tell the truth about these things, why should anyone believe what you say about any other subject.  Your credibility is so low at this point, that I have begun to wonder whether you are even a person who genuinely believes in flat earth.  I have not seen any of them tell out and out lies like you do. You seem more like a troll.

Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth. (D1797-8)
Galileo would have us believe that there is an absolute separation in Holy Scripture between matters of faith and morals and matters pertaining to the physical sciences. That such is not at all the case, Pope Benedict XV assures us in Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.

The quote from Pope Benedict makes it clear that the Church does not
accept the idea that Scripture only concerns itself with matters of religion, and that scripture does not pertain the to profane disciplines. 

He mentions the "recent critics," and he seems to be correcting their erroneous ideas. The "recent critics" are likely those who want to separate Scripture from science, as Jayne and the modernists do.

I did a cut and paste of the exact list that was in the original docuмent.  Anyone can go back in the thread and see for himself that I did not leave anything out.  This is at least the third time you have told a lie like this, in which you make a claim about something written elsewhere that is obviously untrue when checked.  You are the one who is dishonest and it discredits your fellow flat earthers that they allow your lies to go unchallenged.

If you can't tell the truth about these things, why should anyone believe what you say about any other subject.  Your credibility is so low at this point, that I have begun to wonder whether you are even a person who genuinely believes in flat earth.  I have not seen any of them tell out and out lies like you do. You seem more like a troll.

I'm referring to the Book Of Genesis, not your cut & paste skills. 
You really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Only a few pitiful trailer park trash types sincerely believe flat earth.
Most flat earth proponents are NWO/kike provocateurs angling to make traditionalists appear generally as ignorant as trailer park trash.

You wish.  Flat earth is sweeping all nations and people are finally waking up to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and its foisting of the heliocentric lie on the world for profit and gaining control.  Sad that those of you who have to wait for it to get popular before you believe it stubbornly remain skeptical without even fully understanding it. 

Who says the Church has not proposed flat earth for belief as having been divinely revealed?  Prove the main geocentric model of that time posited spherical earth.  In fact, we have proof from writings of great Catholics that the ones who posited such a thing were pagans.  I can read.  In context.  The words say what they say, not what you wish them to say.  They are quite clear.  Again, this is not the world according to Jaynek.  The Fathers and Scripture testify that earth is not as the pagans claim.

If there had been a decree or magisterial docuмent proposing flat earth as having been divinely revealed, I would have expected a flat earther to post it by now.  I know that I have never come across such a thing and I have been reading a lot on the topic.  It is not possible to prove a negative, but you can prove me wrong by producing one.

It is a matter of historical record that the dominant model of geocentrism, at the time Copernicus and Galileo challenged it, was the Ptolemaic one presented in the Almagest.  This posits a spherical earth.  It was compatible with Aristotle's science (which also had a model of geocentrism in which the earth was a sphere) which, after the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, was accepted by virtually all Catholics.  Almost any history written of the period would say so, starting from Wikipedia to the most scholarly.

What great Catholics write something other than this?  If there were any people at the time of Galileo who believed in a model of geocentrism that incorporated a flat earth they would have been a tiny minority.  There is no reason whatsoever to think that the condemnation of heliocentrism includes spherical earth which was not a controversial belief in the 1500s.

I am glad that you read things in context.  I would like to read your catechism quote in context too. Would you please tell me where it came from.

Your credibility is so low at this point, that I have begun to wonder whether you are even a person who genuinely believes in flat earth.  I have not seen any of them tell out and out lies like you do. You seem more like a troll.

You finally admit what your cronies at SD were saying: that flat earthers are not "real" and they must be existing to make Catholics look bad.
Obviously, you're wrong and outnumbered by the many flat earth Catholics here.
Why don't you take your insincere interest in this topic back to your SD echo chamber and take up your false obedience to Pope Francis again?

Meg, have you read the entire Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus Deus?  I am not misrepresenting what they say.  I am not taking a modernist position.  

Pope Benedict XV makes it clear that Scripture is not limited to matters of religion only.

You do seem to take the modernist position.