Does the average Catholic understand even one form so well as that? If either form is understood well, then a Catholic is disposed to experience both well. If not even one is understood well, then it might not help to expose the ignorant Catholic to the other one. Sure, they might see the truth at a different angle and finally “catch on”, but they might also see the other and see even less in that one!
Now, it is possible that putting the two side-by-side is useful, that seeing both and know they are the same will allow the one to elucidate the other. Still, if someone is as short on appreciation of what happens at Mass as many are, the poor soul who has the privilege to be exposed to both might still be just as in the dark as before.
I am convinced that if the older form had been widely understood in the first place, no one would have dreamed of coming up with a second form at all. The thought was, ah, well, if they faithful simply see the Mass in this other way, then they will understand better. It did not work that way. Many, unfortunately, still misunderstood the Mass, only they misunderstood in a less-ancient incarnation spoken in their mother tongue, which probably lead them to believe that they appreciated the Mass better than they actually do. This is because it was something other than the plain meaning of the words that was not being understood. When there was something “lost in translation”, it was unfortunately not the choice of tongue or the orientation of the priest or the volume with which he prayed that was the culprit. It was the light of comprehension that was not there.