Nope
Yep.
For starters...No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma [Immaculate Conception] can be brought forward from Scripture as noted per the catholic encyclopedia. Karl Keating, a Roman Catholic apologist and founder of catholic answers, admits in a debate with James White the Immaculate Conception is not found in Scripture.
However, even this from the CE is at odds with the following from Catholic Answers.
Catholic Answers gives this explanation for the dogma [emphasis mine]:
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit [recall the Catholic Encyclopedia says No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma [Immaculate Conception] can be brought forward from Scripture], Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
However, that is just what we have...the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception does indeed contradict Scripture.
This is evidenced in Revelation 12.
1A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth. Rev 12:1-2 NASB
Roman Catholics claim verse 1 is about Mary....however, if v1 is about Mary then v2 has to be about Mary as well based on the structure of the sentence. This is where the Roman Catholic argument for this being about Mary runs into conflict.
If this is about Mary, v2 clearly notes "she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth."
In Genesis 3 we have the punishment for the woman for her sin which is imputed to the remainder of women.
16To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 NASB
We also have this from Catholic Straight Answers in direct contradiction of Revelation 12:2.
The troublesome part is the middle– Mary’s virginity in giving birth to Christ. We remember that one of the sufferings inherited because of original sin is that of “child bearing pains”: The Lord God said to Eve, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16). Since Mary was free of original sin by her immaculate conception, she would consequently be free of “child bearing pain.”
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-do-we-mean-when-we-say-mary-was-ever-virgin/
The Roman Catholic is now in a dilemma as there is a clear contradiction of Rome's position on this issue with Revelation 12:2.
Further, as part of the punishment the husband is to rule over the wife.
In Matthew we see Joseph take Mary into his household and she becomes his.
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21“She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” 24And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Matthew 1:18-25 NASB
In this passage we also see the Roman Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary discredited as the text indicates he, being Joseph, kept her a virgin until Jesus was born. After that they were free to consummate the marriage.
The Roman Catholic will likely try to appeal to the undefined "unanimous consent" of the ECFs. However, this appeal also fails as noted by the Catholic Encyclopedia.
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 260).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).
These are not light weights in Roman Catholicism.
For the Roman Catholic to continue to perpetuate this false dogma they have to read into Scripture something that is not there, ignore what is in the Scripture and then selectively cite only those ECFs favorable to their position.
That is eisegsis....reading something into the text that isn't there to support a belief.
So what is this grace/favor that is so unique that it even takes the place of Mary’s name in the archangel’s greeting, becoming Mary’s identity as it were?
When Mary asks how she will become the mother of the divine Messiah, since she is a virgin, Gabriel answers her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.” Luke 1:35
The Greek word for overshadowed, “episkiasei” reminds us of the word used in the Greek Septuagint Old Testament referring to how God dwelled in the inner part of the Jewish Temple. (The root Greek word “skeinei,” which is similar in sound to the Hebrew word “shechinah” (Greek has no ‘sh’ sound), means “to tabernacle.” Thus Gabriel refers to how God dwelled in the Holy of Holies at the center of the Temple where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. Read in the context of the Old Testament theology of the Ark and the Temple, it is clear that Gabriel is explaining to Mary (a devout Jew who hoped like any devout Jewish woman born of the line of David to become the mother of the Messiah) that her unique grace/favor was already to have been prepared to become the real Holy of Holies, a fit place for God to come and tabernacle with human beings.
Since Sin means alienation from God (Isaiah 59:2, Galatians 5:4), Mary could not be “overshadowed” by the Most High God as Gabriel promises unless, like the center of the Temple, she had already been suitably prepared to be the Holy of Holies—in other words, that she had been created and kept completely holy, completely free from all stain of Sin. For how can God rest/dwell in what is alienated from God?
Connecting the dots, the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26) came to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived (that is, kept free from all stain of sin) NOT because of any merit on her own, but to help accomplish what God had promised in his covenant through the Jewish people with the human race—to pitch God’s tent/to tabernacle/to take on the “tent” of human flesh/to dwell among us as our Savior. Thus the Jewish Temple is a prefiguration of Mary, and Mary in turn is a prefiguration of all of us as the Church, the body of Christ, who continue to give birth to/perpetuate the indwelling of Christ in the world. Luke 1:34
The second does not logically follow from the first.