You are interpreting Scripture incorrectly according to Leo XIII, Benedict XV, and Pius XII.  None of these were modernists.

Since these popes lived long after the Fathers of the Church, it is not possible for the Fathers to have followed their teaching.  Just as there was nothing wrong with questioning the dogma of the Immaculate Conception before it was defined but doing so was a sin afterward, disregarding the teaching that Scripture does not intend to teach science is wrong now in a way it was not before these encyclicals were published.

The Fathers wrote many things that were wrong, even some that would be sinful to believe now.  Leo XIII explicitly said that some of their ideas about science which they based on Scripture were wrong.

You're being a Catholic incorrectly, Meg!

So you believe that all of those Church Fathers were wrong, and that it is a sin to believe what they taught. Where did Leo Xlll condemn the flat earth? You'll need to be specific. I am asking about the condemnation of the flat earth, so don't go off on a tangent and post other stuff.

Hey, JayneK, I'm rather uncomfortable with your continued use of the terminology that Scripture "did not intend to teach about science" and your attempt to make a radical bifurcation between faith and science.  If Holy Scripture were to have stated, in no uncertain terms, "No, the earth is not shaped like a ball but is flat, etc. etc." then it would be heresy to believe in globe earth.  That was in fact the mind of the Holy Office when it condemned heliocentrism as heretical and contrary to the faith.  And this is also consistent with the mind of St. Pius X and other popes regarding Scripture.  That division between faith and science or, alternatively, faith and history has an extremely modernist savor to it, so I would urge you to abandon that phraseology.

Indeed, however, Scripture can be read as using metaphorical or relative terminology to describe phenomena rather than scientifically-precise terminology.  So, for instance, people who are heliocentrists would nevertheless use expressions like "the sun rose" or "the sun moved across the sky" ... because they're describing the motion of the sun relative to their own perspective rather than in some absolute scientifc way.  Maybe that's what you mean, that Scripture doesn't always intend to use terms in a absolute or scientifically-precise way.  Similarly, Scripture, when quoting Our Lord, does not always intend to render a direct quote from Our Lord but could be conveying the essence of what He said.

With regard to the Fathers, indeed most of them believed in a flat earth.  I just don't see any evidence that they regarded it as a matter of faith or a teaching of the Church or, most importantly, a revealed truth that was part of the Deposit and handed down through the Apostles.  They often rejected it as "stupid".  Their "belief" (notice I do not say "faith") in it by itself doesn't rise to the level of its constituting a dogmatic consensus regarding the matter.  And that's consistent with the teaching of Pope Leo XIII.

So I believe that between the possibility that Scripture is not using precise and absolute scientific terminology and the lack of evidence that there's dogmatic consensus among the Church Fathers on the issue, I consider it an open question vis-a-vis the faith, at least at this point in time.

I am still open, scientifically, however, where it comes to the possibility of flat earth.  I've seen some very interesting points made by the proponents of flat earth (though there are difficulties with the position as well) and I continue to investigate the issue and keep an open mind about it.

Without speaking for her, I don't think she would consider it a "sin" to believe in flat earth, nor would she hold that it's condemned; her issue is with the dogmatic flat earthers who insist that it's a matter of faith (i.e. almost de fide) and that those who think otherwise are not Catholics or at the very least bad Catholics.

Those flat-earthers who believe that it is De Fide are a definite minority. And I don't see any indication that Jayne is limiting her criticism only toward them. I can only think of one who believes that it's a matter of faith.

I do see that she believes that we are not allowed to believe in a scriptural basis for a flat earth. We are going to disagree, of course. She implied indirectly that Pope Leo condemned the idea of a flat earth. So I would like her to show where he stated this. And why would she even mention the "sin" thing if she doesn't believe it's sinful to believe in a flat earth. Why mention it at all?

Of course it's obvious Pope Leo did not say anything about the flat earth. He never condemned it, and he NEVER condemned those Fathers of the Church who wrote about the flat earth. So you are wrong to say that we cannot take a scriptural basis for something that Fathers of the Church have already used a scriptural basis for.

Your view that we can't base on scripture is moot. We are not treating scripture with some new-fangled view - it's a view that's already been described by the Church Fathers. We aren't inventing anything new. YOU are the one who is terribly uncomfortable with what the Church Fathers wrote regarding the earth. We are not uncomfortable with it.

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. 

We are allowed to treat scripture in a way that the Church Fathers treated it. It has not been condemned by any authority to do so. It doesn't matter that it's not Church teaching that the earth is flat. It wasn't Church teaching when the Church Fathers described it either. So what. Get over it. It's not forbidden to believe in a flat earth, as the Church Fathers did.

You object to a great many things, Jayne, so it's not surprising that you think we are rejecting Church teaching. Accusing Catholics of rejecting Church teaching is a coward's way out. There's no teaching that say that we cannot believe in a flat earth. I'll keep reminding you of that. Over and over again if need be.

It is not forbidden to believe in flat earth.  It is incorrect, however, to present flat earth as the true Catholic position, taught by Scripture and the Fathers, as many have done countless times on this forum.  In order to do that, one must reject the Church teaching given in Providentissimus Deus and elsewhere.  

It is also not forbidden to believe in a spherical earth.  This  belief is not a rejection of Catholicism, Scripture, or the Fathers. It is not an embracing of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or modernism. It is a completely acceptable view for Catholics that has never be condemned.

I already know that believing in a flat earth is not condemned so I don't need reminding.  It might be more useful to keep reminding yourself over and over that there is no teaching that people can't believe in a globe earth.