If they assumed at the Council of Trent that there were known cases of the baptism of desire, without the baptism of water,then they made a mistake.
If a pope or saint in the past inferred that there were explicit cases of persons saved without the baptism of water it was an objective error.Since objectively no one on earth has the ability to see someone on earth or at least the Church does not recognize this gift to see people in Heaven, among any Catholic.1
The popes and saints mentioned the baptism of desire etc since there was a campaign by the secret societies, looking years ahead, to create an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So the popes and saints in response to queries about the desiretherof (Council of Trent), of a hypothetical case of a catechumen who dies before receiving it, would say,with good will,that he could be saved.
There could have been those who asked this question and wanted the popes and saints to associate the dogma EENS with the baptism of desire.
Then in 1891 Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore completed the job for the Masons.He laid the theoretical and doctrinal base for the new doctrine. He called it ' a baptism' and equated it with the baptism of water. He also assumed it was known,visible and repeatable like the baptism of water.
So in 1949 Cardinal Richard Cushing picked up the cue;the work of the Masons and others,over the centuries.He and liberal theologians could cite the Baltimore Catechism as a precedent.Since even the Catechism of Pope Pius X accepted the error.Rome supported him. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949, issued by Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS when he considered the baptism of desire etc as being explicit and so a known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
Then along with the Jesuits Cardinal Richard Cushing placed the new doctrine in Vatican Council II while he maintained the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Lumen Gentium 14 says only those persons need to enter the Church who know about Jesus and the Church.Why only those who know? Since those who are in invincible ignorance, and are saved without the baptism of water,were not hypothetical cases, for Rome and Cardinal Cushing, but known exceptions to the dogma EENS. So only those who are not in ignorance but who know about Jesus and the Church,need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell( LG 14) was the new doctrine.
This is a Cushingite passage in Vatican Council II. We have to re-interpret LG 14. We have to be aware that those who know or do not know and who are saved or not saved are not known to us personally on earth. They are hypothetical cases. So they do not contradict the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).They are not even relevant to the dogma EENS(Feeneyite). Nor is LG 14 an exception to AG 7 and LG 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
Similarly we have a Cushingite passage in Lumen Gentium 8 which refers to elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8). Again no human being can know of someone saved as such and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So we have to remember, when reading Vatican Council II, that a hypothetical case cannot be an explicit exception to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.
In this way Vatican Council II is in harmony with the Council of Trent and the Council of Florence on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
By being aware of the hypothetical reference we avoid the false premise and inference and so we are back to the old theology, the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Then the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is the same before and after Vatican Council II.