There is NO Scriptural support for any of those beliefs.
They are the fiction of a neutered church which incorporated heathen, feminized mythology into its liturgy and which continues to misconstrue matter and sexuality and salvation.
Mankind from the time of Cain, has desired to worship God in his own way, not in God's way. Even though God has laid out a text for them with the correct way to worship, many men find it more satisfying to do it their way. Doesn't matter if you cite Cain, doesn't matter if you cite the rogue Levites, doesn't matter if you cite Saul, doesn't matter if you cite the Golden Calf. Going to do it their way, because it's much more satisfying.
True, no direct scriptural support. There is no support for the superstition of the Sola Scriptura either. But my Church is authorized to "bind and loose" on the matters of salvation. Yours?
I'm wondering if it is a feminized mythology or something else. They made the blessed Virgin into an ideal: human sexuality inferior, and as such, non-existent and able to give birth without disturbing the hymen at all.
The protoevangel of James notes that she was tempted to have sex, and I guess the details are pretty lurid, and that's one of the main reasons it was shunned. I've not read the proto. I gained this information from The Life of Christ, by Giuseppi Ricciotti, a Roman Catholic priest. The book is a great source of information, and to many people considered an insuperable book of its kind.
Hermann Sasse notes that Mary's assumption constitutes man's attempt to be on even footing with Jesus. Look for his piece online, it's a fascinating read with some historical info that is good to know. I think the placement of her as sinless alone among humans makes Jesus no longer unique. She is the neck of his body, and to get to the head you must pass through the neck. For The Head to get to you, He has to come down through the neck. And they've not finished yet until such time as they've attached belief in all this to the bare-bones requirement of the possibility of one's salvation.
Can you imagine St. Paul preaching this view of salvation to his Galatians? Or St. Peter to his congregation? Either one affording neither baptism or the Holy Bread (1 Samuel 21) to anyone who doesn't believe this? I can't.
Why is it that the development of doctrine always seems to be at the expense of the unique character of Christ as found in Scripture? Why does the development of doctrine always result in moving Christ further away from His Sheep, not closer. It is something I've never understood. Instead of King he becomes the CEO who delegates to the saints, and really is none too happy to have you approach him outside the parameters designed by the developers of doctrine?
And, all of this perfection of woman in the ideal that eminates from these doctrines -all under the cloak of some sort of higher-end theology- is not truly Hebraic either, as far as I can tell. It bespeaks an impostion of the Hellenistic upon the Hebraic, and which to me rings false.
I don't know if you've visited Pastor Leithart's site in the last few days, but he had the following piece there, which I don't really think is connected directly to our discussion here, but represents yet another piece of the puzzle falling into place for me.
True Humanity In the second edition of his book on ritual in the early modern period (Cambridge 2005), Edward Muir describes the 14th and 15th century obsession with "Christ's carnality": "As Leo Steinberg has shown, in fifteenth-century Italy thoroughly Christian artists made visual allusions to Christ's phallus, showing that the god-man had all the attributes of other men. In many paintings the Virgin Mary pointed to the penis of the infant Jesus, and some scenes of the deposition from the cross obviously showed the outlines of Christ's adult member beneath the obligatory cloth that hid his sex from view. Allied to this concentration on the parts of Christ's body was the cult of the holy foreskin. Other than the consecrated host and perhaps some drops of blood shed on the cross, the fleshy residue from the infant Jesus's circumcision would have been the only bodly remnant of Christ on earth since the rest of the his body was resurrected and ascended to heaven. The researches of Caroline Walker Bynum have shown that the cult of the holy foreskin seems to have had a certain charm for female mystics. When Catherine of Siena experienced her mystic marriage to the infant Jesus, she received from him a ring made not of gold but of his foreskin."
Here's a link to his site.
I never know how far off the trail I might acutally be as I'm thinking about all of this, which I do quite often.