If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.source
Yes, but not Geostasis. You see, Pope Urban VIII did not define the earth as centre, but as immobile. This is compatible with earth being centre or with earth being a disc closer to Heaven or closer to Hell in a box formed universe.
I do not say that Pope Benedict XV believed earth to be a disc, or even to be the central globe: I say he was not directly attacking the definition of Pope Urban VIII. If he leaned towards Heliocentrism being true, he at least suspended judgement. The words and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought are not equal to and though this earth on which we live
Since the 1820's or 1830's the Church had not been repeating the definition of Urban VIII: but it has not contradicted it either, at least not before Vatican II. The object of Benedict XV was not cosmology, but Dante. And the whole point of the passage was that Divina Commedia retains all of its value even if Heliocentrism be true.