Ok, so you agree that heresy is a sin, a mortal sin - the worst of all the sins. The question is, how can a penitent Catholic obtain absolution from the sin of heresy? 

1917 Canon 2314
§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication"

What is excommunication?
Excommunication is a censure attached to certain sins (the sin of heresy in this case) by the (1917) Code of Canon Law.

What is a censure?
From Commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law (pdf attached)....
"1525. A censure is a penalty by which a subject (by Baptism) of the Church is deprived of some spiritual benefits, or of benefits connected with matters spiritual, because of obstinate violation of some law of the Church, until such time as he repents and obtains absolution."

Note that, contrary to popular opinion, per (1917) Canon Law, the censure of excommunication does not mean that one is outside of the Church, what the censure means is said above.

What all of this means, is that the penitent Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy, whether the bishop decides an abjuration is required or not,  can do that which only members of the Church can do - walk into the confessional, confess his sin to the priest and be absolved by the priest. This is because in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. 

Honestly, all any trad needs to do is use themselves as an example, i.e. what would they do if (God forbid) they fell into the sin of heresy and wanted to repent? 

Yeah, the whole reason this debate exists is because Sedes use the overly-simplistic argument of "Heresy = loss of membership = loss of office.  All happening in the span of 10 seconds."

Then those opposed say, "Well, heretics are still members."  (which is true, to a degree).

What the Sedes argue is true (if re-framed), i.e. -- Manifest heresy (i.e. rejection of the faith) = loss of unity with the mystical body = loss of office.  But WHEN all this happens, is anyone's guess. 

This is not evidence that Pope Pius XII's teaching in Mystici Corporis regarding the public sin of heresy means that a Catholic who commits this public remains a member of the Church.  Show me one theologian after the promulgation of Mystici Corporis and before Vatican II who holds your position.

So the teaching of a Pope does not overrule the opinion of a single theologian...who held said opinion 400 years prior to what Pope Pius XII clarified? Do you not think Suarez would have amended his opinion due to it being contradictory to the teaching of a Pope?

Who cares?  Suarez had an opinion.  +Bellarmine disagreed.  It's a debate.

Stubborn, are you now saying that ALL of the Fathers taught this?  If so, you're now claiming that it's a dogma of Tradition and that +Bellarmine is (by ignoring the Fathers) a heretic.

Why can't people just admit that it's a debated issue?  

No, that's my question.  Was it ALL or just some?

Suarez would know that claiming that "all the church fathers" taught something, would mean it's infallible.  +Bellarmine would also know this (as well as the other theologians who agreed with +Bellarmine).  I find it hard to believe that this was Suarez' claim.

If his claim was "most" or "nearly all" then that means it's a speculation, which means that people can disagree.

The reference to Suarez does not seem to speak about excommunication due to public heresy.  You seem to be lumping all acts that result in excommunication.  What you fail to realize is that the sin of public heresy is of Divine Law.  So according to you, Martin Luther died a member of the Church.  Correct?