-Origen says ‘open’ in that quote and you had him as your first reference. I see no reason to assume what you assume: that he’s talking about the hymen unless I’m missing more context somewhere in that first quote. Certainly Jesus opened Mary’s womb during his birth, he was the first thing ever to pass through her and we as Catholics believe he remains the only such thing, but I see nothing there contradicting the view that Our Lady’s bodily virginity was left intact.
-You have two quotes by Tertullian, the first one saying this:
“he other humiliations of nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes…”
I didn’t even see it before but I see now that there’s no reason to even assume Tertullian changed his mind. It seems more likely that Tertullian believed Mary had a normal birth (with blood and all) but was still a virgin (in that she never had intercourse).
I.e. You’re assuming there’s only one possible meaning to the use of the word virgin: making it only about hymen when it is often about whether a person has had intercourse. Is there a reason to believe that if a hymen is broken, a person who has never had intercourse is no longer a virgin? We have to assume that to think the second quote indicates a change of mind by Tertullian.
I also do not see a reason to equate “blood” with “hymen breaking”, why do you assume so? Even if our lady’s hymen was miraculously opened by God without affecting it, there would still be blood. Ordinary mothers who certainly are not virgins bleed some amount when giving birth.
In addition, Tertullian is not the end all be all. He might have been wrong about certain details.