Jaynek has dodged my question 3x. 

So, they found their way to have their infallible 1616 decree and a way to bypass it and have their heliocentrism.

Olivieri: ‘From the fact that the hypothesis was allowed, I have demonstrated (I hope incontrovertibly): that the system had not been condemned as regards astronomical motions of terrestrial rotation and translation, that is, in its foundation and per se; but it had been condemned as regards the terrestrial difficulties besetting the doctrine of its defenders. Thus now that the system is taught without such difficulties, it is no longer subject to the condemnation.’--- Retrying Galileo.

So finally, we come to what can only be considered the biggest fraud in history conjured up out of desperation to ‘save the Catholic Church.’  no ‘system’ was condemned as formal heresy, only to assert the (Biblical) sun as fixed. Olivieri’s heretical ‘terrestrial difficulties’ is another invention. Here he states the condemnation was an orbiting Earth plagued with terrestrial difficulties, a belief held by Aristotle, Ptolemy and others when dismissing the old Pythagorean solar-system. Olivieri went on to say the theologians of 1616 were obsessed with the idea that if the Earth flew through space ‘all atmospheric phenomena would be completely disturbed and intermingled.’

Anfossi wrote: ‘The Holy See [in 1616] took no account of this [terrestrial difficulties]. They considered the matter as theologians and declared it “formally heretical or at least erroneous in the faith” because it was contrary to the Divine Scriptures; and the Holy See condemned it.’ If in the judgment of the Holy See it was contrary to the Divine Scriptures in 1616, so it is still in 1820.’ 

Olivieri: ‘Let us try to free the most Reverend Father from such a misconception… Tell me, is it not true that the doctrine declared “heretical or at least erroneous in the Faith” was also “absurd and philosophically false?”…So tell me how you think they arrived at such a “contrariety to the Sacred Scriptures?” On what foundation did they establish it? What were they basing it on? Why did the decree say “philosophically false and absurd” before “altogether contrary to Divine Scripture?”’--- Ibid.

Olivieri: ‘Settele’s corresponding proposition “as the Earth moves around the sun” and others like it can no longer be called “philosophically false and absurd” by anyone because it is most certain that philosophically and by natural reason they contain no “falsehoods or absurdities.” Therefore, the doctrine of modern astronomers is not the one judged “heretical or erroneous in the faith”… Please reflect that if philosophical absurdity is attributed to the words of Divine Scripture, it becomes an interpretation that ecclesiastical authority can very well define as “contrary to Sacred Scripture” and this is precisely our case. Such was the case of the devastating motion from which Copernicus and Galileo had been unable to free the motions of axial rotation and orbital revolution which they ascribed to the Earth; such devastating motion was certainly contrary to Sacred Scripture.’--- Ibid.

Is that a fact now? Had Olivieri read Copernicus’s 1543 book he would have found he gave a very good reason why his heliocentrism - the very same fixed-sun/moving-Earth motions proposed by Olivieri, the one condemned as heresy in 1616 and confirmed in 1633 - had no such devastating motion.
 
‘But if someone opines that the Earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary to those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore, Ptolemy had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered [due to its motion around the sun].’--- De revolutionibus, Book 1.     

The Status of the 1616 Ruling and Decree
 
But now it is time to tie down another loose end. Having challenged Anfossi on every point concerning the authority and content of the 1616-1633 rulings, he then makes a startling admission, but ties it in with his non-violent nonsense.
 
Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at the time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’--- Retrying Galileo, p.213
 
Olivieri, Commissary General of the Inquisition, finally admits that the 1616 decree against a fixed sun and moving Earth remains an ‘irreversible pontifical decree.’ He confirms that Pope Paul V’s decree was without argument papal and ‘unrevisable.’

So, by inventing a terrestrial difficult 1616 decree as the infallible one, it was untouchable. But according to 'modern astronomers' heliocentrism is proven not filled with terrestrial difficulties so we can now let Catholics believe in a now harmful heliocentrism while we still have the infallible terrestrial disturbing heliocentrism decree of 1616.

So, they found their way to have their infallible 1616 decree and a way to bypass it and have their heliocentrism.