.
Pope Innocent XI in 1681 annulled the act which was a clandestine prohibition against the book. He did not condemn the book.

I did some research on this and found conflicting accounts of what happened.  Most seem to agree that Pope Innocent XI both condemned Ciudad (basically rubber-stamping the Sorbonne recommendation) and three months later removed the condemnation, at least for Spain/ the original Spanish version. There is disagreement about the extent of this removal, some claiming the entire Church was affected while others claim it was limited.

We can see that happenby used one of the sources which said there was a condemnation by the Pope in 1681, an account by James A. Carrico.  This author was a farmer with a devotion to Mary of Agreda who publicized her life and cause with various booklets and pamphlets.  He was not a historian, just a devout man who wanted to share helpful information.

It seems that Carrico drew the information quoted by happenby from Cardinal Hergenrother's reputable Church history.  Compare the Carrico quote with this passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]Hergenröther, in his Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., VI, p. 416 — V. Palmé, Paris, 1892), informs us that the condemnation of the book by the Roman Inquisition, in 1681, was thought to have come from the fact either that, in its publication, the Decree of Urban VIII, of 14 March, 1625, had been disregarded, or because it contained apocryphal stories, and maintained opinions of the Scotist school as Divine revelations. Some blamed the writer for having said that she saw the earth under the form of an egg, and that it was a globe slightly compressed at the two poles, all of which seemed worthy of censure. Others condemned her for exaggerating the devotion to the Blessed Virgin and for obscuring the mystery of the Incarnation. 

Carrico seems to have misunderstood the significance of the bolded statement.  Even historians influenced by the myths of White and Draper, thought that Catholics accepted the earth was spherical after Columbus proved it with his voyage. (In fact, educated Catholics believed in a spherical earth throughout the medieval period.) Even White and Draper would not have claimed that Catholics believed in a flat earth and the time of the Sorbonne condemnation, almost 200 years after Columbus.   

But Carrico was not a historian.  He inserted the explanation that describing the earth as egg-shpaed was saying that "our globe has a spherical shape with poles." He seems to have thought that people blaming Sor Maria for writing that the earth was a globe must mean that they thought the earth was flat.  He apparently did not know that the Ptolemaic model (the main one with Church approval at this point) placed a lot of emphasis on the earth being a perfect sphere and they would see a description of the sphere being a bit squashed as disagreement with the Ptolemaic model.

At any rate, the subject line of this thread is completely incorrect.  Pope Urban VIII never condemned Sor Maria's writings or said anything about these describing the earth as a sphere. Pope Innocent XI may have condemned her writings (according to some sources) before soon withdrawing the condemnation, but not because he thought the earth was flat.  Those who thought her description of the earth worthy of censure did so because they thought the earth was a perfect sphere, rather than spheroid.  

I have found this thread as referenced on another thread
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/pope-urban-viii-makes-condemnation-because-of-spherical-earth/15/?action=post;last_msg=603055

This is a most interesting and for me very important in the story of the Copernican revolution and the Galilean reformation. Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) wrote of an egg-shaped Earth. Thus Mary lived at the time the Church condemned the fixed-sun solar system as formal heresy followed by its decrees ending in 1664, one year before her birth with Pope Alexander VII's Bull confirming by his papal authority all the anti-Copernican decrees (banning books etc) were to be placed on the index to be obeyed by all.

Some may not be aware but the shape of the Earth had a very important part in establishing the heretical Heliocentrism and the evolution of the Earth as scientific fact, as they like to believe.
Newton claimed the Earth, because it spins in the heliocentric model, had to have as bulge around the center or equator.




This prolate spheroid, of course, was completely at odds with Newton’s oblate spheroid. Nevertheless, in spite of the Cassinian measurements, and we are talking about two of the most respected surveyors and measuring astronomers in the world at the time, the British scientists, William Whiston, freemason John Theophilus Desaguliers, and John Keill continued to acclaim Newton’s theory as the true one.

Again to make a long story short, the Freemasons were not having it so they sent out their surveyors to 'correct' the Cassinian result and by by hook and crook made the Cassinian shape look false and Newton's correct. and that is how it remained for centuries until 1959 another measurement for the Earth was achieved this time using a satellite called Vanguard. This found the Nt Pole higher and the side narrower, confirming Cassini's Nt hemesphere shaped like an egg.

Later, it was speculated that because of the constant movement of the stars, an absolute 100% accuracy cannot be confirmed. Nevertheless, neither have Mary of Agreda nor Domenico Cassini been proven wrong in their egg-shaped earth that contradicts Newton's spinning Earth and its evolution from paste and star dust.

They are proven wrong by the Fathers, science and math. In order for earth to be an egg there has to be curvature. Curvature is non existent. Water surface must also curve, provably a false premise.

.
I know, you don't want to hear this, but aryzia, you're wrong. Again.
.
Science and math do not "prove" any such thing. There is no consensus of the Fathers regarding natural observable reality. The Church has never demanded that we would believe in opposition to what we can see, test and reason. Some eggs are very close to spherical but not perfectly so, and that's what the earth is, not exactly spherical. It's spheroidal. Curvature is everywhere we look on planet Earth. The surface of the ocean curves along with the crust of the planet under the ocean.
.

Can you make sense of why then the "big blue marble" images we are getting from NASA depict a perfectly spherical earth?

Because it's closer to a perfect sphere than an actual marble is. 

Because it's closer to a perfect sphere than an actual marble is.

.
Maybe it would help if you could better describe what you mean by "an actual marble." 
.
Such as, which is more spherical, "an actual marble" or an industrial ball bearing of the same size?
And compare those to say a bowling ball, a basketball or a soap bubble in zero gravity and zero ambient air currents.
.

have you never heard of marbles

.
Have you never heard of losing your marbles?