Questions Answered – January 2026

St. Paul and “Completing the Sufferings of Christ”

Question: Dear Fr. Cush, how should we interpret the words of St. Paul in his letter to the Colossians 1:24. It appears as if he says that by what he suffers he completes what is lacking in the suffering of Christ. This same thought is portrayed in the concluding prayer of the memorial of Our Lady of Sorrows: “. . . that we may complete in ourselves for the Church’s sake what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.” What could be lacking in the suffering of Christ?

Answer: Thank you for the question — this is one of those phrases that sounds shocking at first, but once you see it in the light of the Church’s tradition, it becomes incredibly beautiful and consoling.

You’re asking about St Paul’s words: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in the sufferings (afflictions) of Christ for the sake of his body, that is, the Church” (Col 1:24), and about the Prayer after Communion for Our Lady of Sorrows, which echoes the same language: that we may “complete in ourselves for the Church’s sake what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.”

The key is to distinguish very carefully between:
Christ’s redemptive suffering in itself (objective redemption)
The application and participation of that redemption in us (subjective appropriation)

1. First principle: Nothing is lacking in Christ’s suffering in itself.
St. Thomas is uncompromising on this. In the Summa theologiae III, q.48, a.2, he teaches that the Passion of Christ was not only sufficient, but superabundantly sufficient, to atone for the sins of the whole human race: “Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race.” Likewise in III, q.49, a.3, he says that through Christ’s Passion we have been delivered from the debt of punishment precisely because his suffering fully satisfies for sin. The Catechism echoes this: Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is unique and definitive (CCC 613–618). “The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the ‘one mediator between God and men’” (CCC 618).

So: in the order of merit and satisfaction, nothing whatsoever is missing from Christ’s Passion. We cannot “add” anything to the value of Calvary. If Paul’s words were taken to mean that Christ’s suffering is insufficient for redemption and must be “topped up” by ours, that would indeed be heretical — and Aquinas himself explicitly rejects that reading.

2. The “Whole Christ”: Head and members
The Fathers, especially Augustine, introduce here the decisive idea of the Christus totus — the “Whole Christ”: Christ the Head united to His Body, the Church.
Augustine famously says that Christ and the Church together form “one whole man”:
“For if he is the Head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man. . . . The fullness of Christ then is the head and the members.”

The Catechism takes this up directly in CCC 795, teaching that Christ and the Church together make up the “whole Christ” (Christus totus).

On this basis Augustine can say something very striking. In his Tractates on John he comments on Col 1:24 and notes that Paul does not say “my afflictions” but “the afflictions of Christ”: Paul “said not ‘of my afflictions’ but ‘of Christ’s’; for he was a member of Christ, and in his persecutions, such as it behooved Christ to suffer in His whole body, he also was filling up his own share of His afflictions.” So Christ suffered once for all in His historical body on Calvary; but in a mysterious and real way, He continues to “suffer” in His Mystical Body as His members share in His cross through time.

3. What does Aquinas say is “lacking”?
In his Commentary on Colossians, Aquinas addresses Col 1:24 directly. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (citing Aquinas) summarizes his line like this:
These words could be misunderstood to mean that the suffering of Christ was not sufficient for redemption and that the suffering of the saints must be added to complete it. This, however, would be heretical.
Christ and the Church are one mystical person, and while the merits of Christ the Head are infinite, the saints acquire merit in a limited degree. What is “lacking,” then, pertains to the afflictions of the entire Church, to which Paul adds his own amount.

So for Aquinas, what is “lacking” is not any defect in the Head, but the still-unfulfilled quota of suffering appointed in God’s providence for the members, the “measure” of Christ’s sufferings to be borne in His Body through history. In the Summa he gives the metaphysical basis for this: Christ’s Passion is like a universal cause of grace and forgiveness which must be applied to individuals. In ST III, q.49, a.3 he says that Christ’s Passion precedes “as a kind of universal cause of the forgiveness of sins,” and therefore “it needs to be applied to each individual.”

That application takes place through the sacraments and through our free cooperation — including, centrally, our patient bearing of suffering in union with Christ.

4. Suffering as participation, not competition
Here the Magisterium is very explicit. St John Paul II’s apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris begins precisely with Colossians 1:24: “Declaring the power of salvific suffering, the Apostle Paul says: ‘In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church’ (Col 1:24).”

John Paul II insists that this does not mean Christ’s sacrifice is insufficient. Rather, Christ, in love, has opened a space for our participation: Each person, by suffering in union with Christ, receives “a particular share in the Redemption” and serves “like Christ, the salvation of his brothers and sisters.”

The Catechism summarizes the same point: “The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ . . . But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, ‘the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery’ is offered to all men.” (CCC 618)

So: what is “lacking” is not efficacy, but participation.
Christ wills that His one perfect sacrifice bear fruit in us from within, by drawing us into a real sharing in His own self-offering.

5. Our Lady of Sorrows and Marian participation
The Prayer after Communion for Our Lady of Sorrows, which asks that we may “complete in ourselves for the Church’s sake what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ,” is simply applying Col 1:24 to us, in the school of Mary. Vatican II’s Lumen gentium teaches that Mary “in a wholly singular way . . . cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in giving back supernatural life to souls.” The Catechism repeats this, saying that for this reason she is “mother to us in the order of grace.”

Mary, standing beneath the Cross, is the perfect created example of what John Paul II calls “salvific suffering”: she suffers with and in her Son, not adding to the value of His sacrifice, but uniquely participating in its outpouring for the Church. The liturgical text is asking that we, conformed to Mary, might also allow our sorrows to be taken up into Christ’s own, for the life of His Body.

6. So — what is (and is not) “lacking” in Christ’s suffering?
Putting it all together:

Nothing is lacking in Christ’s Passion considered in itself. As God-man, His act of loving obedience has infinite value; it is a superabundant satisfaction for all sins (Aquinas, ST III, q.48, a.2). What is “lacking” is the completion of His sufferings in His members. In Augustine’s words, Christ “suffers in His members”; Paul is “filling up his own share” of the afflictions of Christ in the Mystical Body. Aquinas says this “lack” pertains to “the afflictions of the whole Church” to which Paul adds his portion. This is God’s pedagogy of love. God does not treat us as passive spectators of redemption, but as “co-workers” (1 Cor 3:9) who are invited into Christ’s own self-gift. Our sufferings, united to His, become instruments of grace for the Church — never rival sacrifices, but the fruits of the one sacrifice of the Cross being applied and extended in time.

So when we pray, with the Roman Missal, that we may “complete in ourselves what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ,” we are not correcting Christ’s work but consenting to His gracious will: that His one sacrifice should reach the world through the freely-offered lives and sufferings of His members, patterned above all on Our Lady at the foot of the Cross.

The Wording of the Mass: What Is Permitted?

By Fr. Timothy Eck

Question: I am confused as to whether saying “sisters and brothers” instead of “brothers and sisters” is acceptable within the Eucharistic prayer. I understood no words (within the Mass) can be legitimately changed by the priest or any celebrant of the Holy Mass. There are other changes made, for example, identifying our parish when praying for the Church in the Eucharistic prayer. My concern is that once imbedded, if incorrect, anything and everything is able to be changed. Are my concerns warranted or am I overthinking things?

Answer: The GIRM does not explicitly address this.

“However, the Priest (Sacerdos) will remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.” (GIRM 24, cf. SC 22 /3) The word sacerdos (in both SC and GIRM/RM) normally includes both Bishop and Priest. Generally speaking, in Latin either episcopos or presbyter is used when a liturgical text wants to distinguish between the priestly grades of Holy Orders and uses sacerdos to speak of both Bishops and Priests. And so, the above citation most plainly applies to all celebrants of the Mass (Priest or Bishop).

To the direct point, whenever “brothers and sisters” is used the underlying Latin is fratres and so the English translation is an expansion to “brothers and sisters.” Further, there is no necessary underlying ordering in the Latin which would require either “brothers and sisters” or “sisters and brothers.” As such, both express the base Latin. In the strictest of legal readings, the celebrant should not intentionally change the ordering of words in approved translations; however, this flip does no harm to the translation from the Latin, it does not meaningfully change the meaning of the text, nor does it introduce gravely problematic theological distortions. As such it is not a major concern.

Inserting the name of the parish into the Eucharistic prayer is a more problematic change to the text than the above, since it is a direct addition to the Eucharistic prayer and so explicitly forbidden by GIRM 24 and SC 22 /3. Further it shows a theological confusion of the Eucharistic prayers since the petitions of the prayers themselves already pray for the parish community and so explicitly naming the community adds confusion to that.

From Eucharistic Prayer 1 (The Roman Canon):

“Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N. and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you. For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them: for the redemption of their souls, in hope of health and well-being, and paying their homage to you, the eternal God, living and true.”

and

“so that all of us, who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.”

and

“To us, also, your servants, who, though sinners, hope in your abundant mercies, graciously grant some share and fellowship with your holy Apostles and Martyrs:”

From Eucharistic Prayer II:

“Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit.”

and

“Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with blessed Joseph, her Spouse, with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be coheirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ.”

From Eucharistic Prayer III:

“Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.”

and

“May he make of us an eternal offering to you, so that we may obtain an inheritance with your elect, especially with the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God…”

and

“Be pleased to confirm in faith and charity your pilgrim Church on earth … and the entire people you have gained for your own.”

and

“Listen graciously to the prayers of this family, whom you have summoned before you: in your compassion, O merciful Father, gather to yourself all your children scattered throughout the world.”

From Eucharistic Prayer IV:

“Look, O Lord, upon the Sacrifice which you yourself have provided for your Church, and grant in your loving kindness to all who partake of this one Bread and one Chalice that, gathered into one body by the Holy Spirit, they may truly become a living sacrifice in Christ to the praise of your glory.”

and

“Therefore, Lord, remember now all for whom we offer this sacrifice: … those who take part in this offering, those gathered here before you, your entire people, and all who seek you with a sincere heart.”

and

“To all of us, your children, grant, O merciful Father, that we may enter into a heavenly inheritance . . .”

As these plentiful citations show from all four of the primary Eucharistic prayers, there is already an abundance of references to the local community and the Eucharistic assembly. There is no reason pastorally, theologically, or legally to add the local parishes name into the Eucharistic prayer. One is certainly free to do so during the intercessions or universal prayers after the Creed, but not during the Eucharistic prayer itself.

I would say the question is overthinking the “sisters and brothers” issue, but there are more grounds for concern with regard to adding to the petitions of the Eucharistic prayer.