The only question worth answering is one the Pope asked ,even in an oblique way, at least if recent commentaries are correct -

Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini, while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But ‘hypothesis' meant two very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view that is often called ‘instrumentalism'. On the other hand, a hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a ‘realist' position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They thought that Copernicus' system was a purely instrumental device, and Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair."

http://www.unav.edu/web/ciencia-razo...galileo-affair

I couldn't care less if people are Catholic or anti-Catholic, the issue still stands as to whether predictive astronomy based on Ptolemy's observations and framework could prove the Earth orbits the Sun -

Kepler ". . . the ancient hypotheses clearly fail to account for certain important matters. For example, they do not comprehend the causes of the numbers, extents and durations of the retrogradations and of their agreeing so well with the position and mean motion of the sun. Copernicus alone gives an explanation to those things that provoke astonishment among other astronomers, thus destroying the source of astonishment, which lies in the ignorance of the causes." 1596, Mysterium Cosmographicum

The definite answer is No.

What clouds the issue even more is that with the emergence of RA/Dec which allowed even more precise detail to the predictive framework (clockwork solar system) at the expense of having the Sun bounce up and down against the background stars.

The empirical 't' party is a sight to behold - a subculture based on reducing Ptolemy's geocentricity to Royal Society homocentricity -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed to Moore

Rather than withdraw and fix timekeeping, the 't' party guys have created an intellectual atmosphere where nothing makes sense hence the most boring and mediocre atmosphere ever to descend on humanity at the expense of the most vibrant discipline of them all - Astronomy.