Strange how all these pious stories are considered infallible, but the stories that tell a different slant are not worth the words printed since they are "not infallible" as the Benedict Center or Diamond Bros. see it.  

Poor Myrna just doesn't get or doesn't want to.  

.
To say that the souls of those in mortal sin do not descend immediately to Hell when they die is a direct contradiction of Benedictus Deus, the papal definition that settled the controversy over the general judgment (regarding which John XXII is often slandered as a heretic).  When you die, you go where you're going to go.  That could be purgatory, but that's only a round-about way of going to Heaven.  After death we go to Heaven or Hell.  There is no third place.  Not since the Resurrection
.
So, if:
.

• Justification is radically, absolutely, and ontologically impossible without the sacrament of baptism
• Someone dies without receiving the sacrament of baptism
• They descend immediately to Hell
• And cannot be resurrected to return to Heaven, since the punishments of Hell are eternal.

.
So, these stories are either false, or they prove BoD.  They can prove BoD since a person could be brought back-- at least as a vision-- from Heaven to return to earth.  But even this would not amount to a real baptism of water, since the resurrection of the body does not occur until after the general judgment, which does not occur until after the end of the world.  Which means that any such persons being "resurrected" wouldn't really be resurrected the same way that (e.g.) Lazarus was resurrected.

1. Are you equating the case of Lazarus with those as of the final (presuming that there are and/or have been) resurrection?

(note: not granting that pious stories, private revelations etc. are, at least directly, proper matter for Theology, Natural or otherwise)

Every time I forget the folly of discourse with those who don't answer that asked, esp. something as simple as a y/n question with a simple, direct and IMMEDIATE y/n, I inevitably regret it.

Take care,

out.

Things work differently from the Old Covenant to the New.
.
There is a reason that every instance of "true" resurrection-- i.e., the return of the soul and the body united to earth-- occurs prior to THE Resurrection (Christ's Resurrection, that is).  Prior to that time, the gates of Heaven were shut, and there really was a "third place" of sorts that was not purgatory, but the limbo of the fathers, from where people could be truly resurrected.
.
That is what happened with Lazarus. 
.
That is also what happens in the Book of Ezechiel, which is highly instructive as a matter of metaphysics to read the account of Ezechiel raising up the army of Israelites from bones.  It is a very illuminating and poignant testament to Catholic metaphysics as described by the likes of St. Thomas.  Which is neither here nor there in terms of direct applicability to the case at hand, but which serve as a reminder that when we talk about suspensions of the laws of nature for the production of some miracle or another, there is still an order by which these things occur.  Read Ezichiel and see how very carefully the scriptures describe the chronology of exactly how the dead are raised, all the while considering what we know about Catholic metaphysics and the relationship between soul and body, and so on. 

Regarding those underlying metaphysical and theological notions, here is the passage from Ezechiel in question (Chapter 37):

The hand of the Lord was upon me, and brought me forth in the spirit of the Lord: and set me down in the midst of a plain that was full of bones. [2] And he led me about through them on every side: now they were very many upon the face of the plain, and they were exceeding dry. [3] And he said to me: Son of man, dost thou think these bones shall live? And I answered: O Lord God, thou knowest. [4] And he said to me: Prophesy concerning these bones; and say to them: Ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. [5] Thus saith the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will send spirit into you, and you shall live.

.

[6] And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to grow over you, and will cover you with skin: and I will give you spirit and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord. [7] And I prophesied as he had commanded me: and as I prophesied there was a noise, and behold a commotion: and the bones came together, each one to its joint. [8] And I saw, and behold the sinews, and the flesh came up upon them: and the skin was stretched out over them, but there was no spirit in them. [9] And he said to me: Prophesy to the spirit, prophesy, O son of man, and say to the spirit: Thus saith the Lord God: Come, spirit, from the four winds, and blow upon these slain, and let them live again. [10] And I prophesied as he had commanded me: and the spirit came into them, and they lived: and they stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

.

[11] And he said to me: Son of man: All these bones are the house of Israel: they say: Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost, and we are cut off.

Note the careful detail the Scriptures devote to the chronology of the resurrection.  It could just as easily have read, (something along the lines of) "and now all the bones were raised up by the Lord and were men again, who said/did such and such a thing..."
.
But instead the scriptures actually devote time to describing precise stages of resurrection.  The flesh is formed back onto the bone.  This makes the body potentially capable of movement, and we see that the Lord moves the joints in order to facilitate the rejoining of flesh to bone.  And then, before the reunion of soul to body, Ezechiel stops to note that "there was no spirit in them."  Only after the spirit (soul) is breathed back into them is the army now composed of actual men who, of their own, can live and speak.
.
The point is simply that a human person, who alone is capable of receiving a sacrament, is soul and body (a metaphysical claim, supported here by the scriptures).  But since Christ's Resurrection, the two are separated after death, and not united again until after the general judgment, which is at the end of time (a dogmatic claim).  
.
With that in mind, it's impossible-- metaphysically, but also as a matter of doctrine-- for someone to be resurrected in the way contended, after Christ's Resurrection.  And that's why the only instances we find of resurrection are in fact in scripture, and prior to the Resurrection of Our Lord, when there was still a Limbo of the Fathers.  
.
But look, this is all a more intricate approach to the question which is settled quite simply by the infallible definition of Benedictus Deus, which doesn't get into the theology behind the matter, but simply defines the fact that those who die justified go immediately to Heaven (or purgatory, which is just a roundabout way of getting there-- you don't go to purgatory unless you're going to Heaven) where they enjoy the Beatific vision, or immediately to Hell where they are separated from God for all eternity.  If, on the anti-BoD hypothesis, someone dies without water baptism, they, by definition, go to Hell.  And now these same theorists will have us believe that they can leave Hell, come back to earth, be baptized, and go to Heaven?  No, no, no.  This runs roughshod over Catholic metaphysics and Catholic doctrine.  You ruin every conception of the human person as soul and body by so contending, not to mention that you directly deny Benedictus Deus in the process.
.
Of course, the proof advanced in the OP is just one many that those who deny BoD will advance, and I don't pretend that its failure is tantamount to proof for BoD being Catholic teaching (that is proved through the magisterium).  But this particular proof is completely bogus.  It is telling, just like the thread on here several months ago that tried to claim that BoD is a condemned Calvinist proposition, that many deniers of BoD don't care about theology in the slightest.  

Have they ever said? If not, we don't know.
All we can actually know with certainty, is that once they were baptized and left this life, they went directly to heaven.

.
We can know, though, through very simple deduction.
.
There are a grand total of two possibilities after death (after Christ's resurrection).  Either Heaven (including purgatory, which guarantees eventual Heaven) or Hell.
.
Now, from the anti-BoD perspective, you can't possibly argue that such persons went to Heaven or purgatory.  Which only leaves Hell.  Which, in this particular narrative, is a place that they're leaving and then afterward going to Heaven.  Nice.  Definitely incentivizes not getting baptized while you're alive the first time, wouldn't you say? :D
.

.
We can know, though, through very simple deduction.
.
There are a grand total of two possibilities after death (after Christ's resurrection).  Either Heaven (including purgatory, which guarantees eventual Heaven) or Hell.
.
Now, from the anti-BoD perspective, you can't possibly argue that such persons went to Heaven or purgatory.  Which only leaves Hell.  Which, in this particular narrative, is a place that they're leaving and then afterward going to Heaven.  Nice.  Definitely incentivizes not getting baptized while you're alive the first time, wouldn't you say? :D
.

Unless they told us, or unless it was divinely revealed, then no, we cannot know.

But if we were to guess (very simple deduction), then we have to say because they died without having ever received the sacrament of baptism, they went to limbo, were raised from the dead, were baptized, then died and went directly to heaven.

The only thing we know for certain of their whereabouts after their first death, is being that they died without baptism, they did not go to heaven until after they were baptized.

.
Limbo (of the infants-- if it exists) is part of Hell.  There is no third place.  
.
This isn't guess work.  We have divinely revealed truth and solemn definitions which say that Heaven and Hell are the only eternal resting places, and that when a person dies, they go immediately to Hell if they are reprobate.
.
This is before we even discuss any of the underlying theology, which I'm sure we won't do, because you don't care about it and make it up for your own purposes as you go along.  Where's Ladislaus?  He's supposed to be the one with the nuanced view who looks at everything objectively and gives each 'side' their due criticism, just ask him, he'll tell you, and I would have expected that at least he would see how completely ludicrous the OP's attempt at proof is.  
.

All we know with absolute certainty, is that they did not go to heaven until after they received the sacrament of baptism. 

SAINT EMERENTIANA: Those familiar with the traditional Breviary (dropped from the Novus Ordo "missals") will know the story of this virgin and martyr. The idea that the Church would have her religious commemorate such a person who was - according to those who deny Baptism of Desire and Blood - on a yearly basis for some 1800 years - is to say the least "offensive to pious ears." Let us quote the Breviary directly:

"Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God."

This virgin and martyr died in Rome about the year 350. A church was built over her grave. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908, some days after the death of St. Agnes, Emerentiana who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on January 23 and she is again commemorated on Sept 16 under the phrase in caemeterio maiore (where she is buried). She is represented in the iconography of the church with stones in her lap and a palm of lily in her hands. Some have argued that she was baptized - but such is absurd as she is both called a catechumen, and the Church states in her liturgy that she was "baptized in her own blood."[4]

Yet another example, enshrined in the Breviary in the office of Nov. 10, is that of ST. RESPICIUS.

"During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all  men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and toggether with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurredboth were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom."

ST AMBROSE, another doctor of the Church, provides us with the fourth example. He has the following to say with  regard to the death of Valentinian II, who was murdered at Vienne in the year 371. Valentinian II was the son of the Emperor Valintinian I, Emperor of the West, and his second wife Justina. Valintinian I and Justina had been displaced by Mangus Maximus, and had sought support from the Arian Theodosius, who was Emperor of the East. As a result  Valentinian II for many years he sat on the fence and tried to bring about a compromise in the arguments between the Arians and the Orthodox. In this he was opposed by St. Ambrose. When his mother died, Valentinian II abandoned Arianism, became a catechumen, and invited St. Ambrose to come to Gaul and administer baptism to him. He was however αssαssιnαtҽd before this could happen and his body was brought to Milan where the saint delivered his funeral oration "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio" which dwelt on the efficacy of baptism of desire. The following is extracted from this oration:

"But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it. Whence it is written, 'The just man, by whatsoever death he shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest'(Wisdom, 4:7)."[5]

[4]                    Thomas Hutchinson explains this away by assuring us that  if at the time of her martyrdom "she had truly not been baptized, it must be expected that someone would have done it while she lay dying."

[5]    Thomas Hutchinson informs us that St. Ambrose was using a political ploy, and that he made this statement in an "highly charged atmosphere  of grief, fear, and popular anger surrounding the funeral."  He then assures us that St. Ambrose in fact "knew" that Valentinian had indeed been baptized, but was not at liberty to reveal the circuмstances of the evnet, which presumably were bound up with the Emperor's mysterious death."