There is no such word as “Marionism.”
If you mean the Church’s “Marian” dogmas, they are found in the Scriptures—Old and New Testaments. They are not derived from assorted casual communications, press releases, articles, etc.
You will find the Scriptural basis for the Church’s Marian dogmas discussed here:
Ah, c'mom man. You knew what I was talking about, didn't you?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/marianism
Even among official papal encyclical the term 'cult of Mary' has been used, although in neutral sense, and while that cult within Roman Catholicism was being provided acknowledgement/allowance/justification for, at the same time. Must I go dig that out for proof? There is even one entitled "Marialis Cultus" (which could be translated 'Marian devotion'). Will you recall that on your own -- or be willing to take my word for it? In another encyclical, I forget which one precisely, in English translation at Vatican web pages for it, the term "cult of Mary" is used quite directly.
Ah..so you did know what I was talking about. You offered me this;
Which is Tim Staples book.
No thanks, much of that's already been well enough refuted, portions of it, even on this forum. If there was anything much new, or else not commonly enough argued here on these pages, and yet elsewhere too-- could you single that out, and bring that precise aspect for discussion?
If you desire to make an argument one way or another, then make one. Don't send me to Amazon.com unless you'd be willing to go there yourself to purchase what I may send you to go purchase. Fair enough?
Yet the real point I was making, is that among Roman Catholic scholars on the highest levels, it has been frequently admitted that most all of the Mariology serving as basis for Marionism did not come from Scripture directly, and was for the most part unknown/not mentioned within the earliest centuries (the first few) of the Christian church.
Instead, it arose, and in it's earliest times of doctrinal development found support from an array of Speeches, letters, articles, hints from “high places,” which you'd gone on to say and such like are immaterial.
Staples's book is along lines of after-the-fact imposition upon the texts things which the earliest church did not see -- for they never wrote about them, well, not until the pseudographical Protoevangelium of James (and a couple of other lesser, even worse non-apostolic NT apocryphal writings) according to Origen, first introduced the idea of perpetual virginity of Mary.
Prior to that time Mary would be referred to as the Virgin, no doubt, but never as the Ever Virgin. That marks the beginnings of various aspects of Marionism (which encompasses considerations far beyond Mary alleged to be "ever", perpetual virgin) which grew in popular support until portion such as the alleged Ascension, and then later the doctrine of Immaculate Conception was finally officially acquiesced to, while stating it was the "sense of the Church" rather than having been able to point to any truly apostolic source or even traceable to apostolic source, as in so-and-so said this and that regarding her that was not in realms of Speeches, letters, articles, hints from “high places,” coming from those among the church only in later centuries, most particularly from middling late in the 4th century -- and then in increasing frequency, from that time on.
Surely you knew about such things?
For sake of anyone else possibly reading this, an easier link (than previously supplied) for info about the Protoevangelium of James (also known as Infancy Gospel of James, and more simply; Gospel of James, not to be confused with the NT epistle James.
Informed, critical discussion of Tim Staples book by Jason Engwer; Tim Staples' Book About Mary
Another, again from Engwer regarding similar RC Marionist apologetics; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/perpetual-virginity-of-mary.html and More Early Opponents Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity.
In light of readily available information concerning stages of doctrinal development of Marionology (and history of Marionism) as could be easily enough grasped even for those considering themselves sure enough regarding PVM, when it comes to yet further Marian dogma the story-line is yet more problematic, being as the additional elements are that much yet further removed from original Apostolic sources by multiple centuries' time.
Not found in casual communications, press releases, articles, etc., you say? That's a bit of moving the goalposts I would say.
Of the more ancient sort, along lines of what you'd previously described as speeches, letters, articles, hints from “high places", they most certainly are, and are in fact the sources for Marion doctrines. It matters not one whit that 'church councils' in later centuries took up the notions ---other than they did, and the notions were for the greater extent, not Apostolically/Scripturally sourced.
Here, read and consider this (including the comments and discussion following);
It's not that long of an article, and one need not go to Jeff Bezos' Amazon.com in order to access it. From that article, second paragraph;
There are, of course, dangers in finding Mary in everything, and in seeing everywhere a prefiguration of her. One of those dangers is the possibility that the reader, in finding yet another prefiguration, misses what the text is actually saying. When the Scriptures plainly identify a figure and its meaning, figures really can be revelatory. But when we determine that something, someone, or some place is a figure—yet the Scripture is silent to its meaning—we are left guessing at the intent of the figure and dangerously vulnerable to the meaning assigned by the expositor. A verse about an ant and a sluggard may in fact be about an ant and a sluggard, rather than about a key event in Jesus’ or Mary’s life. We miss this if we must find a figure in every verse of the Bible.
One can overdo allegorical methodology. If searching for any thing and everything that could conceivably be construed to be connected to "Mary" (which is not unfair characterization of Tim Staples's approach) there's no telling what could, through specious eisegesis be found. The sky's the limit? "Queen of Heaven", eh? Even though that terminology when addressed to Mary was condemned by Epiphanius.
Let no one eat of the error which has arisen on St. Mary’s account. Even though ‘The tree is lovely’ it is not for food; and even though Mary is all fair, and is holy and held in honor, she is not to be worshiped. . . . They must not say, ‘We honor the queen of heaven.’ Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 79. Against Collyridians, 7,7; 8,2 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 627.
Feel free to rummage through it, and if finding anything NOT there which Tim Staples addresses, daniel1212 (I'm fairly sure) and I, would both like to see them.