Our Lord says: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Along with the consistent infallible teaching of the Church, is it possible to extrapolate from this verse that those who die before Baptism, and who explicitly desired Baptism or shed their blood for the faith, may end up in a limbo of sorts similar to the limbo of infants?

Our Lord’s words seem to indicate that only the person who believes not shall be condemned and in other verses, including the above, only the Baptized can enter heaven. In no verse however do we have anything that would indicate a person who believes but dies before Baptism would be condemned to hell. Could “Baptism of Desire” & “Baptism of Blood” then be interpreted as a means not for salvation but of non-condemnation? Is there precedent for this at all in the Church Fathers or the Church’s teachings?

Any thoughts? 

The good thief was not baptized. See Luke 23:

The Great Commission, to baptize all nations, came later.

The good thief was not baptized. See Luke 23:

He died in the Old Testament. He didn't need baptism.
Also many Theologians speculate Limbo is a place of natural happiness, for us it would be paradise. But they still are deprived of seeing God


And the Gates of Heaven weren't opened yet so the good thief didn't go to heaven when he died. He went to heaven when Christ ascended into Heaven. 

I believe that it's tenable, and in fact IMO probable ... and it is in fact my opinion.  I started a thread on this a long time ago, called it "Ladislausian soteriology" or something where I posit precisely this, and I did in fact cite this very passage.  It also reconciles what appear to be contradictory statements on the surface from St. Ambrose regarding Baptism of Desire.  He distinguishes between a washing (which can be achieved possibly by BoD) but not a glory, in other words that BoB or BoD could conceivable wash from actual sin but not be enough to enter the beatific vision (which requires the Baptismal character).

So, for example, in addition to infants, you would have in Limbo someone who was unbaptized and mentally retarded his entire life.  Such a person dies at the age of, say, 50.  That person would be in Limbo.  Is he an "adult"?

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/

I would say physically he is an adult. Mentally with the full use of reason and a developed brain that an adult has, no.

So, for example, in addition to infants, you would have in Limbo someone who was unbaptized and mentally retarded his entire life.  Such a person dies at the age of, say, 50.  That person would be in Limbo.  Is he an "adult"?

This is an opinion I've held for a while now. My late cousin was severely mentally retarded and died as an "adult", but he, to my knowledge, was unbaptized. So he most likely subsists in Limbo rather than hell because he was incapable of sinning.

For those interested in knowing what the Catholic Church has always taught on BoD and BoB, you can find nearly a page and a half discussion on the matter in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Ott's summary formulation of the doctrine is:

In case of emergency, Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood [sententia fide proxima]

In Ott's introduction, he discusses the hierarchical ordering of Catholic doctrine from highest to lowest certainty: 1) de fide definita, 2) fides ecclesiastica, 3) sententia fide proxima, 4) sententia ad fide pertinens, 5) sententia communis, 6) sententia probabilis. So BoD and BoB are considered to be the third highest level of certainty behind only divine revelation and the precepts of the Church.

Ott summarizes the teaching thus:

Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.

Scripture verses quoted by Ott relevant to the doctrine are Luke 7:47, John 14:21, Luke 23:43.

Defenders of the above doctrine include St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and Hugh of St. Victor.

On the other side of the argument was Peter Abelard (note there is no "St." in front of Abelard's name).

Finally, Ott says the following:

The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible "without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto). DH 1524. Cf 1604, 741.

I'm honestly confused how people who claim to be traditional Catholics can presume to question settled doctrine that has the Council of Trent and at least three Doctors of the Church behind it.

There's nothing settled about it.  There's a distinction between justification and salvation.  That distinction was not invented by Father Feeney but was prevalent among theologians right around the time of Trent.  Some held, for instance, that infidels could be justified but not saved.

As for BoD, it's nice that you mention the two Church Fathers who may have been in favor of it, but as per usual you ignore the 6-7 who explicitly rejected it.  St. Augustine himself changed his mind and forcefully rejected it later in life.  St. Ambrose made a distinction between washing and crowning, believing that people could be washed of the guilt of sin even if they were could not be crowned and enter the Kingdom.

We've had hundreds of page posted about this.  It's not settled doctrine, and the preponderance of evidence is against Baptism of Desire.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is "a distinction between justification and salvation." And, yes this distinction is formulated at the Council of Trent. The distinction is also made throughout the New Testament. I just say that so I am clear that I don't think it is some theological opinion that started with Trent.
 
To your second point, it seemed, in your first paragraph, that you were conceding Ott's BoD formulation, but restricting its efficacy to "justification" and withholding its efficacy in the context of "salvation." Is that correct? I ask because your second paragraph sounds like you are rejecting BoD, per se. Can you let me know which is the case?

If you mean the you do accept BoD in the context of "justification," as I do, then we are on the same page. That is the "settled teaching of the Church" that I was referring to, because that is how the Council of Trent (and Ott) formulate it. Whether BoD has any efficacy in the context of "salvation" is another matter entirely.

For those interested in knowing what the Catholic Church has always taught

One Universal Church of the Faithful


https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/