CathInfo.com

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.

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.  

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.