Flat earthers' approach to Scripture is like a small child who unwraps a present and plays with the wrapping paper while ignoring the beautiful and precious gift that was intended for him.

God reveals His plan of salvation and teaches us how we might better live to please Him in Scripture.  It is the most important information that we will encounter in our lives.  The words and figures of speech are there to convey these truths, not to be a puzzle in which we look for clues about the shape of the earth.  If the shape of the earth were important to salvation, it would be clearly stated in Scripture and taught by the Church, and this is not the case.

Stop playing games with the wrapping paper of figurative language and pay attention to the gift of Sacred Scripture. 

You are saying that the creation is in no way profitable to salvation, that's not what Pope Leo said.

SAINT Pius the X spoke, as I mentioned about things which touch on the foundations of our religion and then mentioned creation first before anything else.

Even if Pope Leo was referring to the flat earth and it was confirmed by some of his successors, that does not make it right! All the post conciliar popes have confirmed VII's teachings. Clearly they are ALL wrong.

To repeat myself, sacred scripture is not a science book. I am however entitled to take it literally, especially when it is backed up by science.

More than that, we are obligated to take it literally, otherwise it was written in vain. See the teaching on the Eucharist for why.

You are saying that the creation is in no way profitable to salvation, that's not what Pope Leo said.

SAINT Pius the X spoke, as I mentioned about things which touch on the foundations of our religion and then mentioned creation first before anything else.

Even if Pope Leo was referring to the flat earth and it was confirmed by some of his successors, that does not make it right! All the post conciliar popes have confirmed VII's teachings. Clearly they are ALL wrong.

To repeat myself, sacred scripture is not a science book. I am however entitled to take it literally, especially when it is backed up by science.

The fact that God created everything including humanity is indeed a truth at the foundation of our religion.  That is why, for example, we know that evolutionists who say that everything just came about through random events are wrong.  Of course, Pius X mentioned the fact God's creation it first.  It is the main point of the first chapter of Genesis.  It is also the first line of the Creed.  

But that same docuмent said: "it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things and the complete order of creation but rather to hand on to his people a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, adapted to the senses and to man’s capacity" so it is not necessary to treat it as if it were scientific information".
The fact that creation happened and God is our Creator does not mean it is profitable to salvation to look at the the creation account (or an other part of Scripture) for details about science.  That is not the intent and it is not necessary.

You are not entitled to take literally things that the Church teaches are not literal any more than you are entitled to take figuratively that which the Church teaches is not figurative.  You are not entitled to treat as science that which the Church teaches is not meant as science.  The Church has the sole authority to interpret Scripture.

And if your insistence on flat earth makes you reluctant to accept that authority, ready to claim that multiple popes taught in error, then something is seriously evil about this belief.  Our concerns about the post-Conciliar popes are based on their apparent contradiction of clear Church teaching, not due to them interfering with our pet theories about science.  There was a never such a teaching about flat earth.  For at least the last thousand years, virtually all Catholics believed the earth is a globe, although it was never taught as doctrine.

The fact that God created everything including humanity is indeed a truth at the foundation of our religion.  That is why, for example, we know that evolutionists who say that everything just came about through random events are wrong.  Of course, Pius X mentioned the fact God's creation it first.  It is the main point of the first chapter of Genesis.  It is also the first line of the Creed.  

But that same docuмent said: "it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things and the complete order of creation but rather to hand on to his people a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, adapted to the senses and to man’s capacity" so it is not necessary to treat it as if it were scientific information".
The fact that creation happened and God is our Creator does not mean it is profitable to salvation to look at the the creation account (or an other part of Scripture) for details about science.  That is not the intent and it is not necessary.

You are not entitled to take literally things that the Church teaches are not literal any more than you are entitled to take figuratively that which the Church teaches is not figurative.  You are not entitled to treat as science that which the Church teaches is not meant as science.  The Church has the sole authority to interpret Scripture.

And if your insistence on flat earth makes you reluctant to accept that authority, ready to claim that multiple popes taught in error, then something is seriously evil about this belief.  Our concerns about the post-Conciliar popes are based on their apparent contradiction of clear Church teaching, not due to them interfering with our pet theories about science.  There was a never such a teaching about flat earth.  For at least the last thousand years, virtually all Catholics believed the earth is a globe, although it was never taught as doctrine.

There is no argument here.  The  Church has clearly defended the flat geocentric earth because the Fathers of the Church prove it is scriptural.  Your snippet in no way proves earth is a globe. 

As she changes the subject again. I guess I will too.

Do you believe in the Nephilim since it's in the Book of Enoch?

Do you believe those who willingly get their sons circuмcised after seeing Florence are heretics, sinners, etc....?

Yes, there were Nephilim/giants.  As Scripture attests.  Anyone who is made aware of the condemnation of circuмcision in the Council of Florence and still cuts their boy is definitely in trouble.  To what degree is God's business. 

How were the giants made? Were they man, derived from Adam and Eve or did they come from the angels mating with man?

Angels cannot mate with man.  They have no regenerative ability.  As it is written in scripture, the giants came from the daughters of Men and the Sons of God.  Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine say that the daughters of the pagans (daughters of men) mixed with the sons of God (sons of the true religion), men who disobediently strayed from the true lineage of God in order to be with the beautiful women of pagans.  How giants came about exactly, it is unclear (probably clever machinations of the devil who understood what specific matches between individuals might create giants) but we know for certain that two groups were involved, tempted to interbreed, and it resulted in giants.   

Opinions of the Fathers can only be called Church teaching when they speak unanimously on something they identify as a matter of faith.  So quotes which show that some Fathers believed in a flat earth without identifying it as a matter of faith, do not show there was a Church teaching on this.
After the Ptolemaic model (geocentric, globe earth) was introduced in the second century, it came to dominate Christian thinking.  After the period of the Fathers, fewer and fewer Catholics believed in a flat earth and it was virtually erased by the time that Catholic universities started developing.  If the Church had recognized the Fathers' personal opinions about flat earth as proven by Scripture, this could not have happened.

That something needs to be infallibly defined before one has to believe it is false.  The last sentence of yours is nonsensical.  The Church condemned the model at odds with the Fathers of the Church.  Just because people during the Great Apostasy have abandoned the teaching doesn't mean it went away.  

That something needs to be infallibly defined before one has to believe it is false.  The last sentence of yours is nonsensical.  The Church condemned the model at odds with the Fathers of the Church.  Just because people during the Great Apostasy have abandoned the teaching doesn't mean it went away.  

The Church condemned heliocentrism in 1633 and removed the condemnation 1820.  At the time of the condemnation, the main competing model, Ptolemaic geocentrism, included a globe earth.  Therefore the condemnation clearly has nothing to do with the Church wanting to preserve a belief in flat earth.  There was virtually no such belief at the time.