How can we reconcile the teaching at the Council of Trent regarding Baptismal Water being necessary with the teachings on Baptism of Desire and Blood or even unbaptised babies that still may be saved?
Canon 2. If anyone says that “true and natural water” is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.
I mean, if the Holy Spirit lead that Council to say this, how can we say any other kind of Baptism is permissible?
All things must be taken in context. Have you read all of the Decrees of the Council of Trent? Obviously not all of them, else you would have also seen Canon IV “On the Sacraments in General” which preceeded the Decrees on Baptism, to wit:
“Canon IV. If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that without them, or the desire thereof men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
#1258: “The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”
Isn’t God good!