Was Modalism (or "modalistic language") ever considered to not contradict orthodox trinitarian beliefs?

I'm reading Pelikan's first volume of The Christian Tradition, a History of the Development of Doctrine. In this section called "The New Prophecy" in chapter 2 (page 104 in my edition), Pelikan discusses Montanism. Apparently, in the early stages of Montanism, it was focused on moral rigidity and did not try to alter the doctrine of the Church; Montanus probably did not view himself as the Holy Spirit incarnate. Regardless, in later Montanism, his adherents probably viewed him as the Paraclete (aka Spirit) and therefore attempted to alter the doctrine of the church. I'm a bit confused about this passage, however: > In other words, they would seem to have embraced the doctrine that > Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only successive modes of > manifestation of the one God. In that case, the manifestation of God > as Son in Jesus would have been followed by the manifestation of the > one God as Paraclete in Montanus, each in turn. Such language about > the Trinity was in itself quite acceptable in the second century, and > even later; but when the church went beyond it to formulate the dogma > of the Trinity, those Montanists who continued to use this language as > a way of including Montanus in the manifestations of God found > themselves heretical on this score as well. **To me this sounds like Pelikan is asserting that using the language of modalism to describe the Father, Son and Spirit was, in the second century and perhaps beyond, not inappropriate and not contrary to the orthodoxy of the Church.** Is this indeed factual? Edit - In the fourth chapter discussing the formulation of the Trinity, Pelikan mentions this: > Although adoptionism is today more commonly called "adoptionist > Monarchanism" or "dynamic Monarchianism," the label "Monarchian" seems > to have been invented by Tertullian to designate those who, declaring > that "we maintain the monarchy," protected the "monarchy" of the > Godhead by stressing the identity of the Son with the Father without > specifying the distinction between them with equal precision. In the > same treatise, however, Tertullian admitted that "the simply people > ... who are always the majority of the faithful ... shy at the > economy," that is, at the distinction between Father and Son. He > conceded that even orthodox believers could speak of the relations > within the Trinity in such a way as to emphasize the monarchy at the > expense of the economy. This judgement is substantiated by the sources > ...