How is it prudent to remove the very laws which define how we are to worship?
Just because the laity are used to not having sound theology taught, is not a reason to not teach it going forward. If you're equating this to a type of "Americanism" then that is simply to be put to bed, Americanism was put down in the late 19th century as heresy.
What is Rome to do? To answer that question, Rome is to teach and to legislate. Period. Teach sound liturgical theology. This hasn't been done since about 1947, with Mediator Dei. Teach that the Church is a liturgical Church and insofar as this is the case, the liturgy is bound by laws which guide her. Canon Law and Liturgical Law are of equal footing, although you wouldn't know it based on the current timbre of theological laxity. Also, Rome needs to place the rubrics back into the realm of liturgical law and enforce it. Set the rules and hold the clergy and the faithful to those laws. Rome needs to legislate. The rubrics used to be a legal document based upon sound theology. Today the rubrics are pastoral directives based upon a hermeneutic of rupture with regard to liturgical theology. At best it is duplicitous.
What good will the translation do? How will it change how the Mass is celebrated? What force of law is there behind it? Do all of the options remain? Do the theological errors contained remain? Does the poly-amorous view of "Eucharistic prayers" remain? Does the fact that those parts of the Mass which once belonged to the priest STILL have been hijacked and now belong to the laity.
The theology of the Mass is what is at stake here, not a translation. The Mass is not communal, it is sacrificial. The priest offers the Mass on our behalf, yet we have taken over the majority of the roles he is to fulfill. The Mass is not ours to celebrate. It is ours to worship. It is the priest's to celebrate on our behalf. Until Rome and the bishops of the world understand this again, translations are like "lipstick on a pig." Granted it is still lipstick, though, don't get me wrong...it is better than what is currently in place.
Tolerance is what got us into this quandry. Honestly, if I had the Holy Father's ear for 10 minutes, I would say the VERY SAME THING to him that I just said to you. We should not ever be tolerant of error. And the Consilium, along with Pope Paul VI created a very large rupture.
My final thought is this....if we are simply "bending the curve," as you put it, doesn't that just make the distance we have to travel farther? Why not straighten the curve and support Rome in being the teacher of sound liturgical theology and legislator of Liturgical Law (rubrics) in the same way that they legislate Canon Law.