I should not have to say this, but I will.  Nobody put me up to it.  My ideas come from reading Church teaching and thinking about it.

I don't believe that. 

When I say that "Scripture did not intend to teach about science" I am trying to paraphrase Leo XIII saying ...

I can see that you are using the phrase "Scripture doesn't always intend to use terms in a absolute or scientifically-precise way".  That is just what I have been trying to say all along.  Do you really think it will be clearer to people if I put it that way?

That's what I figured.  I know you meant the latter ... which is why I put that in there.  It's just that the language "did not intend to teach about" in modern days has some serious modernist connotations.  I spent enough time around modernist theologians to know.  That's the reasoning they use to claim that there's error in Holy Scripture.  Leo XIII used his language before that kind of thinking came into vogue.

I bet some of you flat earthers have been on the news demonstrating how the tornado sounded ripping through your trailer park.  Y’all just love outlandish attention.  Those folks laughing are laughing at you—not with you.

That's what I figured.  I know you meant the latter ... which is why I put that in there.  It's just that the language "did not intend to teach about" in modern days has some serious modernist connotations.  I spent enough time around modernist theologians to know.  That's the reasoning they use to claim that there's error in Holy Scripture.  Leo XIII used his language before that kind of thinking came into vogue.

I had no idea it could have such connotations.  I was just trying to imitate Pope Leo's phrase.  Of course, I don't want to give the impression that I believe there is error in Scripture.  This explains why Spiritus Paraclitus gave so much emphasis to the point that Scripture is free from error.

I'll avoid that phrasing in the future, although I don't know if I'll be posting about this topic much more.  I think I have pretty much covered everything there is to say on it. I will probably be cutting back on posting in general in the new year. 

You are perfectly entitled to interpret Scripture that way if the Church Fathers held it and the Church has not condemned it.  I'm just saying that your interpretation of Scripture doesn't prove flat earth, that your interpretation COULD be wrong.  Could be right too.  I don't know yet.

Are you saying one’s private interpretation may be wrong?  Has the Church ever said anything about private interpretation?

http://catholicism.org/biblical-inerrancy.html
Pope Leo XIII's traditional position of "absolute inerrancy. "
"There is a LIBERAL view that limits inerrancy to those truths which are only for our salvation. "

Jaynek has definitively shown she holds the liberal view.

"The traditional position, as articulated by Pope Leo XIII, is one of absolute inerrancy: “For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by the [First] Council of the Vatican.”2

There is a liberal view that limits inerrancy to those truths only which are for our salvation, allowing for Scriptural errors in the areas of science and history. This limited inerrancy is the view advocated by Dr. d’Ambrosio in the lectures: “But, what is it God is trying to teach? That is a critical question. What is God trying to communicate? Here’s what Leo XIII said, and later on, what the second Vatican Council said: ‘What the Holy Spirit inspires the writers to assert is truth pertaining to salvation.’ What is revelation about? It’s [about] God and our relationship with him. Is God interested in teaching us historical or scientific detail? No. Does our relationship have anything to do with how many years a king was ruling in Israel, or a scientific detail about whether rabbits have cloven feet or not… No, it has nothing to do with it…. So we trust the Bible completely in all that it teaches us about salvation, but we don’t look for science lessons and we don’t look for secular history lessons in the Bible…”3

The first view refuses to admit any error at all into the inspired word. The second admits the possibility of historical or scientific error, since these matters are not relevant to salvation."

"Two official relationes informed them that the text in no way derogated from the traditional conception of inerrancy..."

"The Catholic Church understands the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture the same today as she always has"

"the Catholic Church teaches the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture, that is, that the Bible is wholly and entirely free from all error. This is “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church” affirmed by Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, Pope Pius XII’s Divino afflante Spiritu, and Vatican II’s Dei Verbum."

This is the position I am taking.  I have repeatedly cited Leo XIII in my posts in this topic, precisely because I accept what he has written on it.  I believe everything written in Scripture is without error.  Ladislaus tells me that I may have created some confusion by my choice of wording.  Here is another way to explain my view (which comes from Leo XIII).  I posted something like this in another thread already:

Let's say, for example, there were a passage of Scripture that said "Joseph set out on a journey as the sun was rising in the east."   The intended meaning would be that he started his journey early in the morning and, according to Providentissimus Deus, this meaning would be true, inspired and without error.  It would not be its intended meaning that the earth stays still while the sun moves around it.  Scripture does not have the intent to teach about physical science when it uses such expressions.  A phrase like "the sun was rising in the east" may be understood as a sort of figure of speech based on how it appears.  It does not oblige us to believe anything about the nature of the earth.  Therefore one could believe that the earth moves around the sun without suggesting that there were any error in Scripture.

Rather than saying there is any error in Scripture, I am saying that some flat earthers err in their interpretation of Scripture by taking figurative expressions as if they were statements about science.  When the Church teaches us the literal sense of Scripture is without error, she is talking about the intended meaning of passages, not telling us to take figurative expressions literally.  Many people here misunderstand this fundamental point.  I am telling you that you are a wrong, not saying that Scripture is wrong.  I completely accept everything taught by Leo XIII and Benedict XV about Scripture.

The problem is, it can't be at odds with scripture. Every description of earth in scripture describes not a ball but a flat earth. And all the Fathers who TAUGHT or extrapolated on the form of the earth also describe it not as a ball, but flat with a dome.

This is the position I am taking.  I have repeatedly cited Leo XIII in my posts in this topic, precisely because I accept what he has written on it.  I believe everything written in Scripture is without error.  Ladislaus tells me that I may have created some confusion by my choice of wording.  Here is another way to explain my view (which comes from Leo XIII).  I posted something like this in another thread already:

Let's say, for example, there were a passage of Scripture that said "Joseph set out on a journey as the sun was rising in the east."   The intended meaning would be that he started his journey early in the morning and, according to Providentissimus Deus, this meaning would be true, inspired and without error.  It would not be its intended meaning that the earth stays still while the sun moves around it.  Scripture does not have the intent to teach about physical science when it uses such expressions.  A phrase like "the sun was rising in the east" may be understood as a sort of figure of speech based on how it appears.  It does not oblige us to believe anything about the nature of the earth.  Therefore one could believe that the earth moves around the sun without suggesting that there were any error in Scripture.

Rather than saying there is any error in Scripture, I am saying that some flat earthers err in their interpretation of Scripture by taking figurative expressions as if they were statements about science.  When the Church teaches us the literal sense of Scripture is without error, she is talking about the intended meaning of passages, not telling us to take figurative expressions literally.  Many people here misunderstand this fundamental point.  I am telling you that you are a wrong, not saying that Scripture is wrong.  I completely accept everything taught by Leo XIII and Benedict XV about Scripture.

You struggle with comprehension.
You hold the second view,  the liberal one, an error. Pope Leo holds the traditional view. 
You do NOT hold Pope Leo's view. 
Nor do ypu agree with Benedict XV that the individual words are infallible. 
You stand in contradiction to both Popes.