Great questions.
Could it be that Rome doesn't really want to get back to the Bible at all, but instead wants to chain again the Bible to the alter and translate it back into Latin to keep the unwashed congregants from knowing the truth within it?
I don't think you are so stupid to not know that bibles before the printing press were worth quite a bit. BTW, Latin is not a forbidden language, I hope my Catholic Church returns to it so that all Catholics across the world will be united again. Luceat Lux Vestra. Don't be a lump of coal.
Why don't you spend a little time to get to know the history of European languages before making such ignorant statements. The use of Latin by the early Church was intentional and beneficial for the greatest number because it maintained the fidelity of the message and brought the Gospel to the greatest number of peoples by virtue of the fact that Latin was the common language of the Roman Empire. It was spoken throughout the empire by all social levels.
Christendom was beset with literally thousands of languages and dialects, the vast majority weren't written or even studied to the extent that proper translations could be made. German is a perfect example. There was no written German language until late in the Church created Hoch Deutsch, or high German. There wasn't even a Germany. Even as late as the reformation Luther did not have a common, standard German into which to write his perverted scripture.
Spain is another typical example. I have been to the birth place of Cervantes near Madrid and have seen hand written manuscripts of Don Quixote in Galacian, Aragonese, Castillian, Leonese, Austurian, Occitan, Murcian, Catalan, Andalusian and a few more. Even with my limited knowledge of Spanish I could detect significant differences between the works and I don't even have a clue as to the subtleties of cognate and dialect.