I believe the OT (old Testament) Just were baptized in Limbo, when Christ visited there after his death and before the Resurrection.  Then they waited 40 days until He ascended into heaven and joyfully followed Him.

I think the miracles of those who were actually raised from the dead was to reinforce the necessity of water.  Like the story of St Patrick who resurrected one of the dead kings...who died under the new law, so baptism was necessary for his salvation, which is why he was resurrected.  It proves the point of baptism's importance.

The OT Just, on the other hand, did not need baptism under the old law, so they could receive it outside of earthly/temporal rules (aka in Limbo).

ROFL, any historical reference for that?  Seems like you just came up with whatever you could to explain your erroneous position.  What about the Good Thief?  "Amen, I say to you, this day you will be with me in Paradise."  He didn't have to wait 40 days.  How did he get baptized?  I really just can't fathom how people can blatantly contradict the teachings of Trent. 

ROFL, any historical reference for that?  Seems like you just came up with whatever you could to explain your erroneous position.  What about the Good Thief?  "Amen, I say to you, this day you will be with me in Paradise."  He didn't have to wait 40 days.  How did he get baptized?  I really just can't fathom how people can blatantly contradict the teachings of Trent.

No, he's speculating.  This is not an explanation or proof for any position.

Idiot, the good thief died before the Sacrament of Baptism became mandatory.

I love it when people ROFL only to make fools of themselves in the process.

And you just arrogantly beg the question that Trent teaches Baptism of Desire, where it clearly does not.

Straight from the Catechism of the Council of Trent: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-

Mistranslated and misinterpreted ... beside the fact the Catechism is not the Council.  You guys just keep posting the same quote mindlessly.

This is nearly a verbatim reference to something written by St. Fulgentius.  He says that the confession (of faith) would avail to salvation ... by keeping a person alive until he can receive the Sacrament.  "Accident" in English implies death implies death, whereas the actual Latin term means some circuмstance/obstacle, and the sense is that the intention to receive Baptism would avail to justification LEST any obstacle get in the way of their receiving the Sacrament.

Is it just me or do Feeneyites actually believes that any "unofficial teachings", "mistranslations" in Catechisms, etc were allowed to go uncorrected for hundreds of years by the Magisterium. They must have been sleeping on the job!

You clearly have no clue about what the term "Magisterium" means.  No, the Vatican is not policing and micro-managing every vernacular translation, nor would such a policing entail any kind of exertion of the Magisterium.  And, now, what?, are you one of these ridiculous dogmatic SVs who believe that infallibility extends even negatively to preventing the Vatican from allowing any error taking place anywhere around the Church.  You had approved Catechisms before Vatican I teaching against infallibility.  You can find one imprimartured book after another well before V2 teaching blatant Modernism.  You've had Modernist bishops floating around for probably 100 years before Vatican II.  And typically the same SVs who make this argument nevertheless reject the Pius XII Holy Week Rites as defective and infected with Modernism.

ROFL, any historical reference for that?  Seems like you just came up with whatever you could to explain your erroneous position.  What about the Good Thief?  "Amen, I say to you, this day you will be with me in Paradise."  He didn't have to wait 40 days.  How did he get baptized?  I really just can't fathom how people can blatantly contradict the teachings of Trent.

Paradise means a walled garden, not necessarily heaven. Christ did not go to heaven on good friday, so paradise must refer to being in christ's presence and the good thief descended with christ into hell, which christ turned into a paradise by his presence. It stands to reason that the good thief would also be ressurrected and baptised.

ROFL, any historical reference for that?  Seems like you just came up with whatever you could to explain your erroneous position.  What about the Good Thief?  "Amen, I say to you, this day you will be with me in Paradise."  He didn't have to wait 40 days.  How did he get baptized?  I really just can't fathom how people can blatantly contradict the teachings of Trent.

1.  I'm repeating theological speculation that i've heard in sermons and from saints, who say it's possible that the OT Just were baptized in Limbo by Christ.  Is it possible they weren't baptized at all?  Yes.  This lack of baptism in the OT maybe a reason the Church does not call the OT just "saints" (i.e. St Adam or St Moses), except for a few exceptions like St John the Baptism or St Joseph (both of whom may have ACTUALLY been baptized by Our Lord).  But Adam and Moses were definitely not baptized on earth, so they are not called "saints".  ??  Not sure, just an argument.

2.  On Good friday, when the dead arose, did they get baptized?  Maybe but practically speaking, who was going to baptize them?  The Apostles and disciples were all hiding, St John the Baptist was dead, which only leaves St John the Apostle as the official priest.  Unless the dead stayed alive for a few days til Easter Sunday to be baptized by the Risen Christ?  Maybe, i've just never heard any saint propose this happening.

2.  It's 'de fide' that the Good Thief had to wait at least 52 days (from Good Friday til the Ascension) to get to heaven because the gates of heaven were closed to everyone, until Christ's triumphant arrival on Holy Thursday.  The Good Thief was not going to get to heaven before Adam, Moses, St Joseph, St John the Baptist, etc.

God made baptism for men to baptize each other. God never baptized anybody, with or without water..        

Quote

From nadir:
"DL, yours is the approach and the attitude of a neophyte, which is why St Paul forbids neophytes to teach."

Well, if you're going to be citing St. Paul, why don't you follow his teachings as well?

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence." [1 Tim. 2:12]

Well said!
Better than "Go bake a cake," but with the same intention.