MODENA, ARCHDIOCESE OF — Sculptures by Wiligelmo on the architrave of the Porta dei Principi (1099–1106). Scenes from the life of St Geminianus healing the daughter of Emperor Jovian — Modena, Cathedral.
In this sense. The true tendency of the Roman Curia, moreover, is quite clear in Pope Callistus (217–22), who indeed excommunicated Sabellius, but likewise rejected the explanatory theories of Hippolytus as mere dietetics, for which Hippolytus, his bitter personal enemy, accused him of ignorance and contradiction. Thus the historical truth of the modalist assertions that Hippolytus attributes to him (Phil., IX, 12) appears more than problematic; all the more so when one considers that another enemy of Callistus, Tertullian, who accuses him of many failings, never once alludes to any agreement with modalism. The same tendency is equally clear in Pope Dionysius (c. 259–68), who summoned Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria (d. 258) and a disciple of Origen, to justify himself against the charge of having, in his struggle against Libyan Sabellianism, fallen into the opposite exaggeration by separating the Persons of the Trinity too much (Athanasius, De decretis, 26: PG 25, 461 sqq.).
The modalists disappeared in the course of the 3rd century, and while some later orthodox writers may have let slip technically imprecise expressions, their orthodoxy cannot be doubted; whereas others, such as Marcellus of Ancyra (v.), revived a considerable part of the modalist system, they were rejected by the Church as soon as the nature of their position was sufficiently understood. Hence the Arian accusation, so often repeated against Catholics, that by defending the Nicene homoousios they had lapsed into Sabellianism, proves groundless.
BIBL.: for a general introduction to m. and for earlier bibliography: A. Harnack, Monarchianismus, in Realencycl. für prot. Theol. u. Kirche, XIII, pp. 303–36; G. Bardy, Monarchianisme, in DThC, X, cols. 2193–2209; J. Lebreton, Le controversie romane alla fine del II sec. e all'inizio del III, in Fliche-Martini-Frutaz, II, pp. 87–98. Specifically on the ancient doctrine of divine monarchy: E. Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem, Leipzig 1935. On Noetus, besides studies on the theology of Hippolytus (v.), cf. J. Dräske, Noetus und die Noetianer, in Zeitschr. für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 46 (1937), pp. 213–32; V. Melchiorio, L'eresia noetiana, Naples 1921; C. H. Turner, The blessed presbyters who condemned Noetics, in Journ. of theol. studies, 23 (1921–22), pp. 28–35; also the introduction by P. Nautin to the ed. of the Contra Noetum: Hippolyte contre les hérésies. Fragment, Étude et édition critique, Paris 1949. On Praxeas: regarding the singular hypotheses advanced for the identification of Praxeas V.
Esser, Wer war Praxes?, Bonn 1910. Also: Th. Hermann, Das Verhältnis von Novatians De Trinitate zu Tertullians Adversus Praxean, M.Urburg 1921; F. Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem und die andern theologischen Quellen bei Ireneus, Leipzig 1930, p. 119 ff.; E. Evans, Tertullian's treatise against Praxeas introduction, text, commentary and notes, London 1948. On the attitude of the Roman bishops toward m.: anon., Der Monarchianismus und die römische Kirche im dritten Jahrhundert, in Der Katholik, 32 (1905), pp. 1–15, 113–28, 182–201, 266–82; G. La Piana, The Roman Church at the end of the second century, in Harvard theol. review, 18 (1925), pp. 201–77; B. Capelle, Le cas du pape Zephirin, in Rev. bénéd., 38 (1926), pp. 321–30.
