Which religion is grabbing the most Catholics?

[HAMRofHERITICS]

ChristFollower:

I wasn’t surprised by the poll at all. I believe the reason for Catholics reforming is the fact that they learn about scripture and of God’s will for their lives. A Christian church that is reaching out to it’s community as the hands of Christ’s body is a living well that attracts all who are hungry for Christ. Christ wants a relationship with you and that is what is cultivated at a gospel dedicated church.

The bright side to this is many Catholic churches are recognizing the fact that Christ wants a relationship with us, that it’s not about what we do, but rather what he did and are encouraging a life lead by the Holy Spirit rather than ritual - I beleive it’s a charismatic reform.

you … have no authority to speak on what Christ wants.

Now, to answer the poll:
Catholicism.

 

[BillyT92679]

ruzz:

I’ve been to rock concerts where Christians flail around saying “I LOVE YOU BRUCE!!!” while standing on the seat back. Yet they find it strange to have the same emotion for the God who created heaven and earth and gave them life.

What’s more nuts?

What is wrong with actually SHOWING your love of Christ outwardly?

Isn’t LOVE an emotion? Isn’t the love of Jesus the strongest emotion? Why is it hard for some to understand that some people are not afraid to show their love?

Would you enjoy your spouse showing you love by standing in a room silently whispering “I love you” or them coming over and hugging you and saying in front of your friends, “I really love you dear”?

What do you think Jesus prefers?

I don’t really think Christ has a preference… as long as you show Him and His Church affection. People strive too hard for an emotional attachment to religion, as if emotion gives the Faith credence and importance, which is presumptious. Charisms are distinct… some folks might receive tongues or a boisterous heart, others might receive quiet contemplation.

 

[Paris_Blues]

Well, I should ask: what religion is grabbing non-Catholics?

CATHOLICISM!

 

[Micael]

This is interesting, seem like evangenlicals are the front runners.

Now Cathloics and Evangelicals should truly look into the upcoming book which is about to be realeased in just 2 days, this 1st Friday July 1st.

Its a book called “Is The Reformation Over?: An Evangelical Assessment Of Contemporary Roman Catholicism” by Mark A. Noll with Carolyn Nystrom .

I’m sure among positives there will be negative notions, however, mere fact that the question is even brought forth is extremely meaningful.

Eventually with the continuity of time Protestants will realize that they are no better than the Catholic Church of the Renaissance with the exception that Protestantism is unprotected by Christ.

In this day of heretical un-Christian concepts being accepted by many Prostestant Churchs such as abortion as well as homosexual marriage the truly faithfull eventually recognize the true Church of Jesus Christ. The Church he founded and protects as He declared to Peter nearly 2000 years ago : "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

 

[Kels76]

As a Wiccan who was originally brought up Catholic, I can honestly say that the largest percentage of other Wiccan converts seems to be coming from the Catholic faith. Why? Well, in my case, I wanted a religion that was flexible enough to accept women as equals and allow us equal roles within the faith, as well as a faith that is non-judgmental about the lifestyles and decisions of others (ie: gays, pro-choicers, etc). I was also looking for a non-patriarchal religion, which means I had to go outside of Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm. It is important to many people to find a religion that is more in touch with the physical world around us, and most pagan religions such as Wicca are Earth-based and concerned with the environment, believing in the inter-connection of all living things.

All religions are just different ways of trying to understand the mysteries in this life, and I believe that all roads eventually lead to the same place in the end, no matter which belief system you choose to follow, so why is it so important to find out which religion is “grabbing” Catholics? This attitude of superiority and arrogance - “Our way is the ONLY way!” is exactly what is driving off others like myself. Maybe you should rethink the importance of trying to hang onto Catholics, and just be glad that each person has found a faith that he or she can be comfortable with and follow!

Blessed Be! - Kels

 

[irena]

I went through CCD/Catechism in the mid to late 1970’s, and I have to say I didn’t learn very much then about our faith. Instead of scripture, apologetics, theology, great saints, we talked about our feelings and made burlap banners. I can see, with this formation, why many left. They didn’t know what they were leaving.

I think the reason why I didn’t leave Catholicism when I was searching my soul for where I belonged, is deep down I wanted to follow something I felt was true and not merely what I wanted it to be. The thing about Christianity is it often goes counter to our deepest desires. It goes against the “I”, when the “I” tells us to do what makes us feel good at the expense of others.

I could never follow someone or a group that told me abortion and pro-choice was acceptable. My brother and his wife are pro-choice and they just had a baby girl, after 15 years of marriage, that they love very much. Up until this they didn’t want children. I marvel at the power they had over this life now entrusted in their care, they could have aborted her, and that would have been acceptable to many. Through no fault of her own, my niece could have lost her life due to the beliefs of her parents. How many others have their lives taken just for the convenience of the parents?

Yet, “pro-choice” is celebrated. But, look what it has done to the relationships between men and women? Men now can say, just get an abortion, if their partners become pregnant. Young girls now believe that the “hook up” is normal dating, you just hook up and have sex. And, if a baby results, just discard it. WHere is the love, where is the message of someone saying, “I care about you and what happens to you. You are not something to be used and discarded.”

Do most women today hate being treated like an object? I do!!! I believe in aspiring to higher standards, because those higher standards protect all of us from being treated like objects. This is one reason why I won’t leave the Catholic church. (The other, of course, is that I believe that Jesus is the son of God!) I am proud to be part of a church that won’t change its teaching to say, “well, if you feel good, then it must be good.” That sort of belief is part of the great deception.

God Bless us all! and open our hearts and minds!

Pax Christi!

 

[O.S.Luke]

vicia3:

But, you see, this is where they are wrong. When we receive the Eucharist, we are satisfied by Christ. People rely too much on their emotions and they let them run their lives. We know what happens in Mass and that is why we are very reverent. WE ARE BEFORE OUR GOD, THEN WE RECEIVE HIM. This is one of the greatest gifts God has ever given us. People think they can find more EMOTIONAL satisfation in other churches. So what if they have more gatherings, more social interaction. :nope: We are not supposed to be dancing and flailing around :tsktsk: . We do not have to do a rain dance to try to get God to join us in our church. He is there all the time. I don’t understand why people think they need more. Sorry if I seem harsh. :banghead:

The Early Church, before the days of church buildings, met in houses… for the main reason that Christian gatherings before Constantine were illegal! House churches were small, intimate, and provided for not only the worship of God, but also the fellowship (Gk. koinonia) of believers.

Social interactions among believers is important… it’s not for dancing and flailing around, but for support and encouragement.

We do not live in a family-friendly society. Families rarely have opportunity to eat meals together, weekends are often taken up by soccer, softball, and baseball tournaments. A couple’s marriage is in constant danger because of finanical stressors, parenting issues, and lack of quality time in their relationship.

No one is saying that God is only present when we conjure Him up; besides silly, it would also be blasphemous. When the Sunday School became a part of the American Church, its primary purpose was to be an ongoing catechumate, but its secondary purpose was to build up the community of faith.

When people lose their jobs, when their marriages are in trouble, when they experience deaths in the family, and when tragedy strikes - the community of faith gathers around them. Sunday school classes provide this ecclesiola en ecclesia.

I think the finest testament to this is when I am summoned to the hospital to provide pastoral care because of a tragedy or serious illness, and when I arrive there find several Sunday School classmates already in the waiting room sitting with the family.

It was be a horrible generalization to say that all Protestants allow emotions to run their lives, their faith, and their worship. But it would also be a denial of who we are to say that Christians are dispassionate about their faith and don’t encounter the emotions of sorrow, joy, dispair, and peace. The Faith is the sharing and giving of ourselves to God. It is lived out amidst the Body of Christ.

I think that deserves more care and effort than just an hour out of a 168 hour week.

O+

 

[dcdurel]

LindaS:

I remember reading recently, and I can’t remember where, that the Catholics who were leaving the Church were the ones who were poorly catechized, while the Protestants who were coming into the Catholic Church were the better (religiously) educated people. We need to do a better job with catechesis! I sure don’t understand how people can say that they are “not being fed” when we have the Eucharist which is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus! Or how they can say we are not “scriptural”. Scott Hahn talks in Rome, Sweet Home about attending a Catholic Mass and being amazed at the amount of Scripture he was hearing.
Peace,
Linda

I must agree with those who say, "we are not being fed".

Sure the Eucharist is everything, but, only if you have been taught the whole truth about the Eucharist. We can’t have faith in what we do not know. The sacraments are not much good if we are not taught about the sacraments. Faith is believing what God has revealed. If we are not taught God’s revelation, we cannot have faith.
The entire problem lies today in a false view of what the Gospel is, and this has led to a false view of the homily.

 The actual true Gospel is the entire Catholic faith as it is lived today. Check out Church teaching, especially the Directory for Catechesis.  Learn Church history.   The four Gospels of the bible are only part of that Gospel. 
In other words, when the apostles taught and preached the Gospel, they taught and preached the Catholic faith.  And they taught it in a fundamental and organized way.  They did NOT read scripture as the basis for teaching the Gospel. They taught the basics of the creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer.  Look up what the early Christians believed and where they got these beliefs. 

 Thus, the homily is a place to teach and preach the Gospel, that is to teach and preach the Catholic faith. The church catechisms contain the basics of this Gospel.  Thus, the teachings of the Catechism are to be explained at mass. The Church teaches that the catechism is a "sure norm for teaching the faith",   NOT scripture.  Scripture is great for illuminating teachings, and nourishing teachings and as a witness to teachings.  It is not and NEVER WAS a sure norm for teaching the gospel. 

But, there was a false interpretation of Vatican II and of the GIRM that says the homily should only be a commentary on the scriptures.  Thus, all we get is a repeat of the scriptural readings at mass, and we get absolutely NO teachings on the basics of the Gospel that the apostles taught, the teachings on the creed, sacraments, the commandments (moral teachings) and prayer.

Until the bishops of this country listen to Rome and to its directives regarding the homily, and use the homily to teach the Gospel, that is the Catholic Faith, we will continue to have Catholics leave for other religions that claim to teach. The bishops have provided absolutly no leadership in this area. I think they are to proud to ask Rome what they don’t understand, and obviously they don’t understand a lot.

 

[WynCatholic]

dcdurel:

But, there was a false interpretation of Vatican II and of the GIRM that says the homily should only be a commentary on the scriptures. Thus, all we get is a repeat of the scriptural readings at mass, and we get absolutely NO teachings on the basics of the Gospel that the apostles taught, the teachings on the creed, sacraments, the commandments (moral teachings) and prayer.

Until the bishops of this country listen to Rome and to its directives regarding the homily, and use the homily to teach the Gospel, that is the Catholic Faith, we will continue to have Catholics leave for other religions that claim to teach. The bishops have provided absolutly no leadership in this area. I think they are to proud to ask Rome what they don’t understand, and obviously they don’t understand a lot.

I am a new Catholic. I was an evangelical, expository preacher. [IMHO:] If the priest/deacon cannot get Catholic doctrine into the homily he either doesn’t know how to, doesn’t want to, or doesn’t know the doctrine or scriptures. It is there. The hard part will be doing it in such a way that people will listen. … and 20 minutes once a week is Way too little.The Church is starving in the midst of plenty.
wayne

 

[dcdurel]

WynCatholic:

I am a new Catholic. I was an evangelical, expository preacher. [IMHO:] If the priest/deacon cannot get Catholic doctrine into the homily he either doesn’t know how to, doesn’t want to, or doesn’t know the doctrine or scriptures. It is there. The hard part will be doing it in such a way that people will listen. … and 20 minutes once a week is Way too little.The Church is starving in the midst of plenty.
wayne

Actually all fairly good priests have the knowledge of the content of what to preach, or they can learn it quickly. They have simply been misled by dissidents into thinking that they can’t teach this knowledge. They have been misled into thinking that all they can do is give a commentary on the readings. And the bishops of this country have been no help in clearing up this misinformation.

The whole problem is complicated.
There are two parts to the problem

1. Nobody outside of Rome seems to know exactly what the apostles taught and preached when they taught the Gospel, and thus today, they don’t have any idea what the basic content of the Gospel is. This is because of dissidents especially Raymond Brown and others in the past 30 years.
2. It seems nobody outside of Rome knows what the content of the homily is supposed to be. The GIRM states:
   GIRM # 68: “[The homily] should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.”
   They have no idea what “exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day” means. No idea at all. And when a few priests do happen to teach doctrine, which they are supposed to do, they tell me they still think they are going against Vatican II and or the GIRM. In other words, they see a need for doctrine, but they think they are going against the policy of the Church when they do teach doctrine. They think the GIRM means that they are supposted to give a commentary on the readings, or an exegisis of the readings and not go beyond the subject of the readings. While this is an option, for part of the homily, this is NOT what the GIRM intends in the parts I just quoted. But, this is the prevailing view by everyone in this country, from the bishops on down.
   The actual fact is that the Church has never changed her policy on the homily from the council of Trent onwards, which is as far back as I went. In fact, the Church made her policy even less scripturally based, because now the Church says the exposition can be taken from the Ordinary of the Mass or the Proper of the Mass of the day. This was not stated before Vatican II.

Priests are supposed to teach and preach the Gospel.
The problem is that no one in this country knows what that Gospel is.
I will bet that less than 1 out of 100,000 people who are on these forums can’t tell the basics of what the apostles taught and preached. Rome knows clearly. The Catechism partially but especially, the General Directory for Catechesis, approved by the Pope, certainly make this explicit.

Of course people know the four Gospels of Matt., Mark, Luke and John. But, that is only a small part of the whole Gospel. For example:
In Mark 1:21"And they went into Caper’na-um;
and immediately on the sabbath He
entered the synagogue and taught."
But, it doesn’t say what He taught.
This is repeated many times.
Another example.
Mr 4:34 he did not speak to them
without a parable, but privately
to his own disciples he explained
everything.
So, even before Jesus ascended into heaven only a little of what He taught was written down.
And after His resurrection and before His ascension he taught them for 40 days more. He explained to them about the kingdom, which is the Church, of course. None of this was written down. Then He sent them the Holy Spirit, who would teach them all things. None of this was written down.
So we have no record in scripture of all this knowledge the apostles received. Then they went and preached and taught this Gospel. They taught all this knowledge they had received. But none of this was written in scripture, except for some rudimentary parts of the creed.

 

[dcdurel]

So exactly what was this Gospel they taught and preached. What is the content of this Gospel?
I spent my whole life wondering what it was, and how basic teachings in basic catechisms, such as the Baltimore Catechism are related to all this. Several years ago, after reading the parts of the Church Fathers, in the Liturgical Press, I kind of figured it out. But, I received no confirmation from anyone in this country. No bishop, scripture scholar, theologian, etc. ever explained what the content of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. So I gave up my pride in which I thought I could know for sure from experts, and I finally decided to listen to Jesus and learn from His Church. And from reading ONLY what the Church officially taught, documents from ROME itself, I finally came to know for certain what the basic Gospel was and what it is Gospel is today. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church and especially from the General Directory for Catechesis, I learned for the first time in 57 years exactly what Gospel the apostles taught and preached. If we don’t know the content of this Gospel, how can we know what the content of the Gospel today is supposed to be?
If we don’t know the content of the Gospel, we can’t evangelize, we can’t catechize, we can’t teach and preach the Gospel. That is the first part of why Catholics don’t receive teaching at Mass.
The second part is that because no one knows what the Gospel is, and how it is handed on and how it is taught, they can’t understand the part of the GIRM which gives directions on the content of the homily when it says,
“[The homily] should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day”

And it would not do any good to explain what this means, until the the correct understanding of the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached is explained. In other words, I can show from past Church teaching and present Church documents exactly what this part of the GIRM means, but no one would accept it because they could not understand it. They could not understand it because they don’t know what the content of the Gospel is. They all think the Gospel is only what is written in the bible, esp, the New Testament or only what comes from the bible.
I assure you, reading the scriptures, ( the readings at mass,) and giving a perfectly correct explanation of all the readings based on God’s word in apostolic Tradition as taught by the Church, is NOT teaching the Gospel.
If the bishops would become a little humble and learn from Rome (what the Pope has approved) instead of experts, scholars, and theologians in this country who are totally lost, (even the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, though orthodox, has no idea what homilies should be on) then this whole problem could be cleared up, and the Church would grow and Catholics would no longer leave for other religions.

 

[JOHNYJ]

After the Second Council when everything was falling apart,Because of missinterpretations of its decrees. Catholics went to the evangelical protestants and the Orthodox. While we played with guitars and tamborines .Catholics were joining the Orthodox and fundamentalst protestant churches.
Now with the corrections and accurate understanding of the Council ! Catholics who convert are going to the mainline protestant churches those that tolerate almost anything.
Importantly it is rumoured that the New Pope is in favor of tightening up compliance with Catholic teachings.That those that can’t actualy act Catholic. Will be politly told to, fish or cut bait.

 

[Thetan]

As a Scientologist, I would say Scientology is where a few former Catholics go to. Many start as both Catholic and Scientologist, but most tend to accept Scientology as their primary religion, though I do know quite a few that are both Scientologist and Christian.

At the Church of Scientology-New York(located at 46th St. near Times Square in Manhattan), there is a lot of activity, and many people who have never even heard of Scientology or visited a Scientology Church end up visiting. So, I think that the number of former Catholics going to Scientology is increasing, especially because many start out as both Catholic and Scientologist, but then realize that maybe Catholicism wasn’t for them(no offense meant).

 

[malcolm_davies]

In Australia, the evangelical (baptist) and pentecostal churches take the most ex-catholics.

At present the catholic church is still no 1 but with the participation rate at mass down to 15% and slowly falling AND the steady growth of these other churches then in my state the catholic church will fall from no 1 in sunday attendance to no 3 in about 15 years time.

In the meantime our diocese does nothing about evangelisation and puts all of its time into education, social services etc

 

[twiztedseraph]

I’m going to say evangelical, hopefully that includes quasi-baptists and the Assembly of God “Churches”. My cousins converted to it. I visited a few of their services, I can see why. They cut out any middleman, Saints, Priests etc. The Christian merely lifts their mind to God while Jumping to Rock music they’re convinced this is the pinnacle and meaning of Christianity, that if all those “traditional” churches would simplify we could take over the world. Not to mention their “prosperity” doctrine. So much for GOD having a special affinity with the poor as he wants *everyone * to be rich! The sacraments? Well baptism is just an ordinance, who cares about what’s been practiced since Pentecost all the way til now? Young people especially love it, as the mood is euphoric and they take that as a sign, rather than the biblical teachings of “take your cross and follow ME.” We need to band together and declare something of a Holy War on this, I see too many kids be lured in by it. It would be permissable if the number was limited and even then only to go for some fellowship and praise and worship, but I see it all the way up to Youth Ministers, some kids just give up mass and go their on sunday! Lets pray…

 

[amanda_nicole82]

I’m going to say fundamental protestantism because my husband was formerly Catholic and has joined my church (a Southern Baptist Church) once he started to attend and found that he liked it. He was saved in the Baptist church and was baptised shortly after.

 

[Mickey]

amanda_nicole82:

I’m going to say fundamental protestantism because my husband was formerly Catholic and has joined my church (a Southern Baptist Church) once he started to attend and found that he liked it. He was saved in the Baptist church and was baptised shortly after.

I’m sorry Amanda, but your husband was born again when he was baptised the first time. Subsequent baptisms are inconsequential. Re-baptism is heresy. I don’t say this to be mean. It is Scriptural, and it is Church history. “One baptism for the forgiveness of sins”.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[amanda_nicole82]

Mickey:

I’m sorry Amanda, but your husband was born again when he was baptised the first time. Subsequent baptisms are inconsequential. Re-baptism is heresy. I don’t say this to be mean. It is Scriptural, and it is Church history. “One baptism for the forgiveness of sins”.

Peace,
Mickey

HI Mickey, this is Amanda’s Husband. I used to be catholic and I want to explain why i was baptized again. I had trouble with that same issue for about a year. I said that I was baptized correctly the first time. But according to the bible I wasn’t. So I wasn’t sure what to do. But I realized that the bible was the truth over anythinng in this world. Whether it be a priest, the pope, my own church now, or the minister of my church. The truth is that I do not feel i was baptized correctly according to the bible. In Matthew 3: 11, it said that John the baptist told the people " I baptize with water, those who turn from their sins, and those who turn to god." In Matthew 3:6 it says that when they confessed their sins, He baptiezed them in the Jordan River. Now from what i get out of this is that there needs to be an acknowledgement before you are baptized. When i was baptized as a child i did not acknowledge that I had confessed my sins and I did not acknoledge that I had turned from sin and to god. So when i looked at it that way, i realized that I was not biblically baptized. So I just want you to know as a christian that when i make any decisions in life that has to do with my own spirituality I look to the bible first. I pray that this does not offend you and that it is helpful for you to understand why i feel the way i do now. Take care

Rudy

 

[Mickey]

amanda_nicole82:

HI Mickey, this is Amanda’s Husband. I used to be catholic and I want to explain why i was baptized again. I had trouble with that same issue for about a year. I said that I was baptized correctly the first time. But according to the bible I wasn’t. So I wasn’t sure what to do. But I realized that the bible was the truth over anythinng in this world. Whether it be a priest, the pope, my own church now, or the minister of my church. The truth is that I do not feel i was baptized correctly according to the bible. In Matthew 3: 11, it said that John the baptist told the people " I baptize with water, those who turn from their sins, and those who turn to god." In Matthew 3:6 it says that when they confessed their sins, He baptiezed them in the Jordan River. Now from what i get out of this is that there needs to be an acknowledgement before you are baptized. When i was baptized as a child i did not acknowledge that I had confessed my sins and I did not acknoledge that I had turned from sin and to god. So when i looked at it that way, i realized that I was not biblically baptized. So I just want you to know as a christian that when i make any decisions in life that has to do with my own spirituality I look to the bible first. I pray that this does not offend you and that it is helpful for you to understand why i feel the way i do now.

Hi Rudy!
How do you feel about Scripture talking about whole households being baptized. Do you think there were infants in those households? The Bible was written mainly for pagans converting to Christianity --so at first–it was adults who were baptized at conversion. The Bible does not ever refer to believer’s baptism and it only implies infant baptism (whole households).

Believer’s baptism was invented many centuries later.

So where do we find the answers? We go to the earliest Christians. Those who were taught by the Apostles, or those who were taught by disciples of the Apostles.
I am not offended Rudy. And I hope you are not offended when you discover that rebaptism is a heresy from the earliest age of the Church. My good friend, who was born and raised baptist, is now in the process of entering the Catholic Church. The fact that his Church rebaptizes and refuses baptism to children, was one of many deciding factors.

Jesus said, “Let the children come to me”. Please read this article Rudy, it is very good.

goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7067.asp

God bless you,
Mickey

 

[WBB]

amanda_nicole82:

The truth is that I do not feel i was baptized correctly according to the bible. In Matthew 3: 11, it said that John the baptist told the people " I baptize with water, those who turn from their sins, and those who turn to god." In Matthew 3:6 it says that when they confessed their sins, He baptiezed them in the Jordan River. Now from what i get out of this is that there needs to be an acknowledgement before you are baptized. When i was baptized as a child i did not acknowledge that I had confessed my sins and I did not acknoledge that I had turned from sin and to god. So when i looked at it that way, i realized that I was not biblically baptized.
Rudy

Sorry to jump in here, Rudy. I hope you do not mind. The baptism about which you speak in the above verses of scripture refer to John’s Baptism, not the Baptism of the Church. The scriptures which deal with the Baptism of the Church do not always mention the need to confess sins first and then be baptized. I refer back to St. Matthew’s Gospel, Chapter 28:18-20:

Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Note, St. Matthew doesn’t say, “And after they have confessed their sins, baptize them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Does that mean that no one need confess their sin in order to be baptized? Absolutely not. For in Acts 2:36-41 we find this:

Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

These were adults past the age of reason who were being addressed by St. Peter. Notice also that St. Peter says, “for the promise is made to you and to your children…” It would appear that St. Peter is offering baptism to all people, not just those who are able to confess their sins.