The use of wine in worship is not simply a Catholic distinctive, and for thousands of years in all of Christianity the practice of using wine continued from the early Christians until the American temperance movement of the mid 19th-Century. The earliest writings of Christians such as Justin Martyr [100-165 AD] (The First Apology, 65) and Clement of Alexandria [150-215] (The Instructor, 2.2) affirm the use of wine in early Christian worship. Furthermore, in his historical study Given For You, Reformed Protestant theologian Keith A. Mathison observes that the Reformers like Luther and Calvin retained the use of wine because they believed they were obeying Christ's explicit command. He remarks that even Anabaptists and early American Puritans used wine, and that non-alcoholic alternatives represent a departure from both biblical and early Christian precedent. Despite this historical fact, the “emblems” in the 2×2 Fellowship consist of a slice of bread and a cup of grape juice, although it should be noted that according to some reports, 2×2 Fellowships outside of the United States do actually still use wine in meetings.

The word “jugglery” is a delightful word that is used to describe artful deception or manipulation of facts to achieve a certain end. Accordingly, in a feeble attempt to rationalize the historical discrepancy between the 2×2 Fellowship and early Christians, Jaenen makes the following astonishingly misleading statement:

“In A.D. 1285 William Durandus, bishop of Mende, authorized the innovation of substituting grape juice for wine in his Rationale Divinorum Officiorum.” (116)

Durandus’ Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, or “Rationale for the Divine Offices,” was the most influential and widely circulated commentary on both the material and spiritual dimensions of the Catholic Mass throughout medieval Europe. After its publication in 1285 AD it became one of the most important and extensively disseminated explanations of the liturgical and symbolic aspects of the Mass in medieval European Christianity.

A more complete reading of Rationale Divinorum Officiorum makes it quite clear that the Catholic Church teaches that the “cup of blessing, which we bless” must have wine. The only interpretive flexibility had to do with the type of wine or the actual amount of alcohol in the wine. Durandus makes it clear that, although wine must be used, the quality of the wine or alcohol content could vary:

“Even though we must look, with the greatest zeal, for the best wine for the sacrifice, the poor quality of the wine does not stain the purity of the sacrament; this is why, even if we offer new wine, which is called mustum….in a case of necessity, a cluster of grapes can be pressed and then be confected, but one cannot receive communion from the same unpressed cluster of grapes.” (Book IV, 42, p. 367)

Mustum is partially fermented wine that has a lower alcohol content. It is not merely “grape juice”. It was only approved when wine was difficult to obtain (wartime, isolated geographic regions, catastrophic weather events, etc) or for priests who struggle with alcohol use disorder or some other related medical disorder. The issue was clarified further by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the 1994 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as follows: “by ‘mustum’ it is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation but its nature could not be changed.” Note that fermentation is “suspended”, not removed. Mustum still contains 0.01 - 0.5% alcohol. This is a liturgical exception, only used in special circumstances and the priest has to receive permission to use this during mass. In no way, as Jaenen implies, was “grape juice” ever considered appropriate for the congregation as a whole. Consistent with Catholic teaching, Bishop Durandus still affirms that Transubstantiation occurs:

“When, in truth, the consecration creates the sacrament, and after the consecration, there are no longer bread and wine on the altar, we can ask: what, now, precisely is the bread and wine of the sacramental sign of the Body and Blood? For it could be said that the bread that was there, or the wine that really existed, is neither the sacramental sign of the Body or the Blood, because that bread has been transformed into the Body and the wine into the Blood.”

Having presented the full context of William Durandus' remarks concerning the use of mustum and having established that wine was the normative eucharistic element throughout the first eighteen centuries of Christian history, Jaenen's appeal to this isolated medieval exception actually identifies a significant inconsistency. If the 2x2 Fellowship is to be praised and elevated for its conformity to the practices of the New Testament church and the historic Christian tradition that followed, then its rejection of wine in favor of grape juice cannot be sustained by the evidence. Durandus did not advocate the ordinary use of grape juice in the Eucharist; rather, he addressed a rare pastoral accommodation within a liturgical framework that otherwise assumed the use of wine. By citing Durandus in support of a practice unknown to the apostolic and historic church, Jaenen inadvertently highlights a broader difficulty in his argument: the 2x2 Fellowship departs from, rather than consistently follows, the sacramental practice maintained by Christians from the earliest centuries.

Jaenan, C.J. The apostles’ doctrine and fellowship: a documentary history of the early church and restorationist movements. Legas Publishing. 2003. p. 116.

CCT 14 Rationale IV, William Durand, Thibodeau: On the Mass and Each Action Pertaining to It (Corpus Christianorum in Translation) 9782503548791, 2503548792vas translated by Timothy M. Thibodeau, 2013, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium ISBN 978-2-503-54879-1, p. 374.

Mathison Keith A. Given For You. P&R Publishing, 2002. pp. 301-304