Hans Urs von Balthasar was one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the twentieth century and has inspired a thriving ecosystem of secondary scholarship, with impassioned critics and determined defenders churning out a steady stream of scholarship as expansive as Balthasar’s own massive body of work. This wealth of secondary scholarship is not, however, without a penumbral character. Due to the controversies that have—not without reason—plagued Balthasarian studies, it is often more akin to a war-strewn battleground than a lively and productive dialogue in various areas. By engaging with the work of Gilles Emery and Thomas Joseph White, this thesis explores the ways in which overly rigid interpretations—due to what I call readerly rigidity—can impede an attempt to productively read and present (and critique) Balthasar’s theology. The goal herein is not to counter their critiques, but rather to challenge how those critiques are made.