We’ll just cover the first point and save the others for a future post:
14. The accuracy and value of a translation can only be assessed in terms of the purpose of the communication. To serve the particular congregations who will use it, the following points should be observed in translating.
15. a. The language chosen should be that in “common” usage, that is, suited to the greater number of the faithful who speak it in everyday use, even “children and persons of small education” (Paul VI in the allocution cited). However, the language should not be “common” in the bad sense, but “worthy of expressing the highest realities” (ibid.). Moreover, the correct biblical or Christian meaning of certain words and ideas will always need explanation and instruction. Nevertheless no special literary training should be required of the people; liturgical texts should normally be intelligible to all, even to the less educated. For example, temptation as a translation of tentatio in the Lord’s Prayer is inaccurate and can only be misleading to people who are not biblical scholars. Similarly, scandal in the ordinary English sense of gossip is a misleading translation of the scriptural scandalum. Besides, liturgical texts must sometimes possess a truly poetic quality, but this does not imply the use of specifically “poetic diction.”
This means striking a careful balance. But I can think of examples of “common” usage covering various education levels that need not touch upon the “bad sense,” presumably of slang and other constructions the internet hyper-Catholics seem ready to attribute to Bishop Trautman and others.
The poetry of e.e. cummings comes to mind immediately as an example of what the Consilium seems to be aiming at.