As regards the doctrinal value of Decrees of the Holy Office it should be observed that canonists distinguish two kinds of approbation of an act of an inferior by a superior: first, approbation in common form (in forma communi), as it is sometimes called, which does not take from the act its nature and quality as an act of the inferior. Thus, for example, the decrees of a provincial council, although approved by the Congregation of the Council or by the Holy See, always remain provincial conciliar decrees. Secondly, specific approbation (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation is understood when, for example, the pope approves a Decree of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis. Even when specifically approved by the pope, decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible. They call for a true assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope as infallible teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff, that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority inherent in the Holy See, since the pope is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance. 

From Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13136a.htm

Quote

Taking her information from The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement and the Ultramontane Defense of Them , compiled in 1870 by the English Catholic priest William W. Roberts, the Catholic creationist writer Paula Haigh has pointed out that a generation after Galileo's death:
"In 1664 the Church went to further lengths to extirpate his error: The Index for that year was prefixed by a Bull. Entitled Speculatores Domus Israel, it was signed by Pope Alexander VII, who declared, 'We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.'

Quote

"The importance of this docuмent cannot be minimized, for it included and re-affirmed not only previous formal condemnations, but 'all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement'" Miss Haigh therefore rightly concludes, "The evidence for papal infallibility in the Galileo case rests then upon the Bull of Alexander VII in 1664."

Quote

She discerns a twofold basis for its authority: "1) The decrees of the Index and the Inquisition which were based on the truth of the Church's tradition, especially as in this case it rested upon the unanimity of the Fathers and the constant position of the Church; and 2) the infallibility of the Pope speaking in his own official capacity as Head of the Church and therefore ex cathedra, even though not defining any new dogma but simply affirming tradition.

Thank you for this.  It is an important distinction.  It also says that said decrees may indeed be infallible.  That this decree was certainly infallible is forwarded by two Catholic authors, namely, Paula Haigh and Fr. William Roberts.  

Exactly. When I started arguing that they should not use Scripture and the Fathers to prove flat Earth, because it's not possible, I was almost on board the Flatty train. Since seeing the type of people that advocate it and how they portray those who don't see it their way, I have since abandoned searching for the shape of the Earth.

I have provided plenty of proof that one should not use Scripture to show that the earth is flat.  I am not here to prove a model. I don't care if you think the earth is flat. I object to the flat earthers misrepresenting the position of the Church and using Scripture for a purpose for which it is not intended.

The shape of the earth means nothing in comparison to the errors you are making about Church teaching and Scripture. I would object even if I thought the earth were flat.  You have not shown a perennial teaching of flat earth.  You have shown that you have no idea about what is true or real.  If someone like you thinks the earth is flat that is almost evidence in itself that the earth is a globe.

The Church teaches that we must believe scripture.  Not believe contrary to scripture.  You have no proof that the Church teaches the opposite of what Scripture says.  In fact, the Church has shown she teaches as Scripture describes.  You will never prove that Scripture is too cryptic to understand, when in fact, it is only cryptic when compared to your notion that earth is a globe.  Scripture's descriptions unanimously point to a flat geocentric earth and not to a ball.  Building some weird premise against Scripture's description of flat earth because scripture doesn't use the words flat earth is a ridiculous endeavor sure to keep you in error.