Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

The sound of your laugh is not pleasing to my ears.

The sound of your laugh is not pleasing to my ears.

And the sound of his Modernism is not pleasing to my mind or my soul.

You have just articulated a Protestantized Modernism in a nutshell.

Just because there's no explicit mention in the Scriptures regarding who this is, there's such a thing as an oral tradition.  That is why the Church has always upheld the authority of the Church Fathers.  Your claim that if something is not in Scripture, then it must be speculation is Protestant garbage.  That's the same thinking that ultimately leads to rejecting Tradition as a source of Revelation.  Because of their proximity in time to Our Lord, having been disciples of Apostles or disciples of disciples of Apostles/Evangelists, there's a very high probability that it was well known through an oral tradition that this woman was indeed Mary Magdalene.

So the Church has always upheld that a virtually universal Patristic understanding/interpretation of Scripture is authoritative and normative, to be accepted by Catholics unless definitely proven otherwise.  Take your sola scriptura elsewhere, and stop pushing it on a Catholic forum.

To be fair, you're referring to the teaching of the Western Fathers. The Eastern Fathers do not hold her to be the the woman in Luke 7, or John 8. This is a schismatic source, but it expounds on the subject:
https://orthochristian.com/63238.html

The article says the Orthodox are unsure if St Mary was 1) the woman almost stoned to death, or 2) the woman who anointed Our Lord’s feet with her tears and perfume.  ...But they do, apparently, agree that Our Lord freed her from 7 devils AND that her home town, Magdala, was totally immoral.  So this leaves us with the same conclusion...St Mary was a converted prostitute, who became a great saint.  Whether or not she was almost stoned or if she washed Our Lord’s feet is not important.  It doesn’t change her horrible past, nor diminish her rise to sanctity.  
.
However, if I had to bet, I’d agree with Pope St Gregory and the Church Fathers.  They would have learned directly from the Apostles and been able to ask questions about Scripture that we can only wish were possible.  They had the opportunity to hear it directly from the source.  

Pope Saint Gregory died in 604 A.D.

I'm not saying that Pope St Gregory was a Church Father; not even close.  But if you look at what his papacy did, and what he concentrated on - Gregorian chant, codifying the canon of the mass, and the Gregorian calendar - you can see that his focus was in unifying Catholicism and in researching the past...something that the Church didn't have time to do in the first 300 centuries during the persecutions and also during all the heresies which came the centuries after that.  So, his opinion on Scripture carries some weight, because it was one of the first times that the Church had time to "relax" and study the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome, which had only been completed less than 200 years earlier.

This is my point ... the opinions of the Popes and Church Fathers always carry significant weight for Catholics.  They are not to be dismissed lightly, much less derisively ... in the manner that apollo did.  Even if we are forced to disagree, we humbly disagree with all due respect.

Plus I objected to apollo's principle that if the Church Fathers speak about something that isn't explicitly in Scripture, then it's nothing more than speculation.  That is NOT a Catholic perspective on the Fathers and on Tradition.

For me, the precise identity of the woman taken in adultery is of secondary importance vs. the above principles.

Nor do we even know

1) how much of the writing attributed to them was actually their work or words  (for all we know, 95% of Emmerich's work was concocted by Brentano)

2) how much if it was actual "revelation" vs. their own editorializing.  They describe things that they see/hear or think they see/hear, and their descriptions necessarily entail a certain amount of interpretation

It's chiefly why the Church did not canonize them ... because it might have meant a tacit endorsement of everything in those works.  It's well known that on a fair number of details the various recipients of the revelations have contradicted one another.

Exactly!

You guys have missed the point... you're referring to the Western position as if it's the Church's only position. The East considers the women found in Luke 7, John 8, and Mary Magdalene to be three different people. That has always been the Tradition of the Eastern Fathers. It's a perfectly Catholic position, unless you believe the Eastern Catholic Tradition to be subordinate to the Western Tradition... in fact, I'd say the Eastern Fathers (as a whole) far exceed the Western Fathers; save for the brilliance of a handful of Saints like Ambrose/Augustine. [emphasis added]

This sort of misguided enthusiasm—misguided in that it warps a legitimate interest in the differing positions of the eight Fathers of the Church on nondogmatic matters into a sectional contest where one side must be declared the victor—is injurious to the study of the Faith and indeed to a proper understanding of orthodoxy.

Two elements of Catholic orthodoxy that the quoted commenter seems unaware of are that it has been well established in authoritative papal teaching for at least 1,000 years (1) that the Latin Rite holds primacy as the normative rite in Christianity and (2) that even in matters legitimately disputed by Eastern and Western sources, Western Catholics are bound to give at least religious deference to Western authorities. The Latin primacy is underscored by the fact that before the Council, an Eastern Catholic could formally become a Western Catholic simply by declaring his wish to do so, whereas a move in the opposite direction required formal permission from either a Roman dicastery or one's local bishop—the alternative depending upon when the requester was alive.

So in a certain sense, like it or not, the Eastern Tradition is subordinate to the Western in that it is fundamentally exceptional rather than normative.