Which do you think was a better way to reform the Catholic Church new religious orders or the Council of Trent?

Answer 1

In the Catholic Church, religious orders and congregations - now collectively called religious institutes - are defined as "a society in which members...pronounce public vows...and lead a life of brothers or sisters in common".

Several kinds are found: monastic, mendicant, canons regular, clerks regular.

They were present ever since the days of the Early Church, and an early example is the Order of Saint Benedict, formed around 529 AD. Today, some 14 centuries later, we still have over 8000 Benedictine monks, over 7000 Benedictine nuns, over 10,000 Benedictine sisters, and over 25,000 Benedictine Lay Oblates.

A religious order was not established to "reform" the Catholic Church, but as a response to the motions of the Holy Spirit, who calls certain men and women to a specific spirituality. Each religious order is profoundly distinct from the others.

At one point in history we entered what historians term the age of the Counter-Reformation (1560-1648, see the link below). The Council of Trent embodied the ideals of this age, and while its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the many heresies of the time, a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.

An Ecumenical Council of the Church is something very special. That of Trent (1545-63) was only the 19th in the history of the Church. The notion begun with the Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) around 50 AD, summoned by Peter, leader of the apostles, under the care of James (bishop of Jerusalem). This first Council decreed with infallibility certain critial matters of faith: namely that that most Mosaic law - including the requirement for circumcision of males - was not obligatory for Gentile converts. This would then be incorporated into Sacred Scripture, and now we consider biblical statements such as "we are not under the Law, but under grace". But these matters were decided in a Council, and initiated by the Lord's revelation to Peter, leader of the Apostles, and his mission to the centurion Cornelius - the first Gentile baptized.

It thus has always been our belief that the solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the leader of the Apostles or his direct successor in office, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible.

All Councils played a significant role in the growth, development, and even reform of the Church, though Trent has a special place amidst them.
You're comparing apples and Oranges. An Ecumenical Council, approved by the reigning Pope, like the Council of Trent is infallible and is the teaching of the Holy Spirit for His Church. Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church "always" until the "end of the age" and this is how He does that. New Religious Orders are one of the ways that these reforms are put in place and carried out. So obviously they both have a part to play, and I don't think it is fair to say one is better as they were both necessary, but in the end game, you would have to say that an infallible Council guided by the Holy Spirit would basically trump the Holiest Saint beginning a new religious Order.