Pope Benedict XVI said of Luke 6.29 that is “rightly considered the "magna carta" of Christian nonviolence; it does not consist in surrendering to evil, as claims a false interpretation of "turn the other cheek", but in responding to evil with good, (Romans 12:17-21), and thus breaking the chain of injustice.” Vatican City, Feb. 18, 2007 (Zenit.org). This requires patient effort which often takes a long time as opposed to the quick violent response which can be so prevalent. 
Image source: forusa.org/blogs/ali-karamustafa
The following article was sent to us by Dr David W T Brattston from Nova Scotia, Canada, on early Church interpretations of “turn the other cheek” demonstrates some of the development in Church teaching:
“Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5.39. This is a hard saying, a difficult commandment. Perhaps some source close to Christ’s time and spirit, some early church father, indicated that Jesus intended only a figurative or spiritual meaning. Attractive though an allegorical meaning is to natural instincts against opening oneself to sustaining assaults and inviting more, it was interpreted literally in the ancient church.
The most quoted version of the mandate in early Christian times was its form in Luke 6.29, which is the same as Matthew 5.39 but does not specify the right cheek, thus applying no matter which cheek is struck. Luke’s version was cited as unconditional by Justin Martyr in his description of Christian belief and practice in the middle of the second century AD. The purpose of this onerous commandment, Justin wrote, is to teach Christians not to imitate wicked people but to lead them from sin “by patience and gentleness”.
Turning the cheek, without indicating the right or left, was mandatory and applied literally by Christians around AD 177, according to Athanagoras, a Christian philosopher in his presentation of Christianity for a pagan audience.
Irenaeus was a bishop in France, who in his youth had associated with the first generation of disciples of the apostles. He indicated that non-resistance and inviting further attack were traits shared by the Catholic church with heretical sects that had broken off. He used this practice as an illustration, with sectarians who denied that Christ had a physical body or suffered. Opening ourselves to further blows and suffering, Irenaeus explained, is to follow Christ. The good Jesus would not have asked His followers to endure what He had not.
In the AD 190s, Clement of Alexandria was dean of Christendom’s foremost institute of learning. He included Luke 6.29 in a list he considered the law of God and of reason, in the same category as loving God, loving one’s neighbour, and refraining from killing, adultery, lust, and theft. He cited it as an example of a commandment that even the spiritually disadvantaged can obey.
Around AD 200 and again in 213, the church father Tertullian in Tunisia considered the form in Luke as fully and literally binding, as a means of teaching Christian patience. Patience is manifested, Tertullian wrote, by forgoing self-defence and leaving vengeance to God.
Origen was the leading Bible scholar, teacher, and preacher in his own time and influenced Christianity for centuries afterwards. A pagan opponent of Christianity had noted that Christians had a saying to turn the other cheek, without distinguishing which one is struck first. In reply, Origen in the late 240s wrote that bearing blows is part of the eternal law of God, being found also in Lamentations 3.27f, 30. Like Tertullian, Origen stated it furthered the virtue of patience.
AD 249/250 was a time of severe government persecution of the church. When preaching about the manliness necessary for living a Christian life, Origen cited blessing those who curse, bearing up under persecution, etc. as practices that Christians are to actually follow. He included turning the other cheek.
While confirming the literal and mandatory nature of Matthew 5.39//Luke 6.29, Tertullian did offer some consolation:
The reason why any one hurts you is that you may be pained. When, then, you have upset his enjoyment by not being pained, he is pained by the loss of his enjoyment. Then you not only go unhurt away, but gratified by your adversary's disappointment, and revenged by his pain. This is the utility and the pleasure of patience.
Read more from the latest Columban eConnections