Cassian and Lent

Cassian at one point was a lead debater for Catholic leaders, but it seems he fell out of favor when he questioned newly framed doctrines like original sin and even the holidays. He says the original church did not practice Lent as a New Testament requirement, and it was added later to bring people back to the idea of giving and self-sacrifice. Of course the funds from the fast were meant for the poor but in many cases benefited the priests standard of living. Some may have cared for the poor but many cared for themselves. It was a battle between the public that had slowed giving and priests who wanted more in a way. Leaders shouldn't use position to make themselves richer any more than the public should withold giving to make themselves richer.

1Ti 3:3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 

It is also important to realize that men who should be able to manage their affairs now needed to turn to different means to raise money for their wealth.Thus, not all priests were qualified to be leaders because they were covetous.

1Ti 3:4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 

1Ti 3:5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 

1Ti 3:6  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 

It seems Cassian saw Lent as a newly commanded fast as a means to raise money and the feast of Easter as voluntary. It was enjoined as a legal requirement by Catholicsto bring men back to proper giving.

Here are his thoughts

St. John Cassian ca. 360-435

Howbeit you should know that as long as the primitivechurch retained its perfection unbroken, this observance ofLent did not exist. For they were not bound by the requirements of this order, or by any legal enactments, nor confined in the very narrow limits of the fast, as the fastembraced equally the whole year round. But when the multitude of believers began day by day to decline from thatapostolic fervour, and to look after their own wealth, and not to portion it out for the good of all the faithful in accordance with the arrangement of the Apostles, but having an eye to their own private expenses, tried not only to keep it but actually to increase it, not content with following the example of Ananias and Sapphira, then it seemed good to all the priests that men who were hampered by worldly cares, and almost ignorant, if I may say so, of abstinence and contrition, should be recalled to the pious duty by a fast canonically enjoined, and be constrained by the necessity of paying the legal tithes, as this certainly would be good for the weak brethren and could not do any harm to the perfect who were living under the grace of the Gospel and by their voluntarydevotion going beyond the law, so as to succeed in attaining to the blessedness which theApostle speaks of: For sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under thelaw but under grace. Rom.6:14 For of a truth sin cannot exercise dominion over one who lives faithfully under the liberty of grace. (Conference 12.30)

This is important because Cassian used concepts commonly used today in faith only debates, did leaders have the right to enjoin legal requirements beyond what the Apostles had given?

He stated they were not under the law, but they chose to place men under their own law.

Martin Luther didn't question apostolic directions, but questioned those of the priesthood in creating mandatory tithing and payment to priests to retain remission of sins.

Later Baptist groups expanded the issue, questioning not only priestly commands and leagalism, but they also questioned the Lord's commands such as baptism.

Catholics turned to legalism, Baptists denied the Lord and his Apostles.

Lent and Easter were marked departures from the Apostles methods of voluntary giving and service. Certainly the Holy Spirit foresaw the way men would react and could have instituted mandatory fasts during the Apostles period but did not.