Taking a passage about the Second Coming, the greatness of God, or some other truth of the Faith, ignoring its actual subject, and reading into it implications about the shape of the earth, is wrong. And it is not what the Church means when she teaches us to use literal interpretation. Fathers, Doctors and popes have taught that your approach to interpretation is wrong.  Private interpretation of Scripture, ignoring principles given in authoritative teaching is wrong.  Insisting that others join you in your error is wrong.

There are no direct statements in Scripture that the earth is flat.  All the "Scriptural support" comes from passages about something else that have no intention to teach about the shape of the earth.  There are no magisterial statements that the earth is  flat.  The majority of Catholics, for at least the last thousand years, have believed the earth is a globe. It is wrong to describe Flat earth as a Catholic belief.  It is even more wrong to treat it like a dogma and say or imply that those who disagree are heretics.

I don't know about the science aspect of the question, but virtually everything I have seen here from flatearthers pertaining to the theological aspect has been wrong.  Even if the earth were actually flat, they would be wrong.

There may have been times when I was too harsh or impatient in my posts and I am sorry for that,  but I do not repent of identifying the errors of the flat earthers.

Hey Meg, this is the kind of garbage I'm talking about. "Maybe Jaynek is a Freemason"?? When one is a Dogmatic Flatearther and believes that one cannot be saved without the hidden knowledge of the shape of the Earth, one says things like this all willy-nilly with no proof. Just blind hatred spewing out of their mouths.

I think that one could make a case that these Dogmatic Flatearthers are actually Gnostics. They are claiming this knowledge is from Scripture, but Scripture makes no mention of it. It's all a ruse to distract us from beneficial Church Teaching that will actually aid us spiritually.

Pope Leo quotes this passage in Prudentissimus Deus, extending the principle concerning the shape of heaven to the "essential nature of the things of the visible universe" in general. We might guess the principle has wider application merely from reading the St. Augustine passage, but we don't need to guess since Pope Leo has spelled that out for us.  Anyhow, since the shape of the earth is just like the shape of heaven in being irrelevant to salvation, it is clear to any reasonable person that the shape of the earth is one of those things that Scripture does not intend to teach.

The Church has the authority to decide that an opinion on science is contrary to Scripture and dangerous to the Faith. Evolution is a clear example of that. (Heliocentrism is less so since the condemnation was later lifted.) Lay people do not have the authority to make those sorts of claims.  The Church has never taught anything like that about a globe earth.

You quote Saints who drew conclusions about physical science from Scripture long before Pope Leo taught not to.  This does not cancel out his teaching so that we who know of it may ignore it.  And it is ironic that you cite St. Augustine when you ignore the principle he taught:
The flat earthers are not insisting on a literal interpretation, but a literalistic one.  A literal interpretation is one that considers the information that the Sacred author intends to convey.  A literalistic one takes figurative language as if it were literal.  When a passage is about the Second Coming, for example, the literal interpretation concerns the Second Coming.  A literalistic one finds a figure of speech in the passage, treats it as literal and deduces that the earth is flat, even though it is obvious that the author had no intention to teach about this. 

No, I don't buy that.  I've studied gnosticism.  It's not gnosticism any more than geocentrism is gnosticism.

.
Yes, Gnostics.  Flat-earthism is gnosticism.