1. You have an extremely trustworthy bishop at your very doorstep: Bishop Tomas D'Aquino at Mosteiro da Santa Cruz, Nova Friburgo. 

2. Fr Rafael and his followers, it would appear, are the ones who are sentencing to death Confirmation for their children by their frivolous rejection of such a trustworthy bishop and faithful son of Bishop de Castro Mayer. Do what you must to make peace with this good bishop, and your problem will be solved.

You presume much in your criticisms.  You presume +Tomas would work with them.  You presume +Tomas has time to travel and spend days confirming people, on a consistent yearly basis.  You presume Fr Arrizaga hasn't already asked +Tomas for help.  You presume +Tomas doesn't have travel restrictions or other impediments.  South America is majorly communist; almost every country is run by a marxist nutjob.  We here in the US take for granted "free movement" still exists (and is affordable).

Had canon law been around when St Athanasius was alive, people would have told him to stay in his Arian diocese, "pray to God and wait for His help".  And Arianism would've conquered the Church.

Starting from this line of thought, should we follow canon law and the pope's orders to join the CVII and repudiate the position of Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer?

The opinion of the Canon Lawyer that an acting parish priest could not validly confirm even a dying child certainly needs a better explanation than I can give if we are to argue along the lines of epikeia. Who is that Canon Lawyer, do we know?

.
Yes, the canonist is William Conway. The book is Problems in Canon Law and it was published in the mid-50s. It is a slim volume but a favorite of mine. Unlike the usual canon law commentaries which more or less all summarize the law, Fr. Conway's book is a compendium of actual letters he received from priests asking canonical questions about truly complicated matters. Here are the relevant questions and answers asked of him regrding Pius XII's indult:

[Question:] Some clarification of the following point in connection with the recent decree on Confirmation would be much appreciated. The decree says that the new confirming power is enjoyed by all priests who are in exclusive charge of a distinct district with a church of its own and who are appointed to this charge in a stable manner. What I wish to know is whether a curate who is in charge of a part of a parish, would qualify for the power under this paragraph? In this parish I have been appointed as curate and the appointment is is likely to last for a number of years. I have charge of clearly- demarcated part of a parish which has a church of its own, distinct from the main parochial church. This church has its own baptismal font; the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in it. I am in residence beside it and for the people living in this district this is the church which they attend for all religious ceremonies and I exercise all parochial functions in their regard (the parish priest has given me full faculties for marriages). Of course I do not say a separate missa pro populo. Have I the new confirming power within the territorial limits of my district? -- Curate.
[Answer:] The answer to 'Curate's' enquiry is that he has not the new powers of administering confirmation. The paragraph in the new decree to which he refers contemplates an entirely different situation to the familiar phenomenon of a curate who is left in charge of part of a parish by the parish priest.
Perhaps the easiest way to underline the differences between the two positions is to point out that the paragraph in the decree deals only with priests who have the exclusivecare of souls in a particular territory. Now 'Curate'-- and others in the same position-- have not exclusive power. It may be that de facto the parish priest does not interfere in the care of souls in the district in any way; but the fact remains that he has the right to do so if he chooses, that is is parish priest for the entire territory of the parish, including the district of which the curate has charge, and that the authority of the curate is entirely subordinate to that of the parish priest-- and, in fact, is partly delegated by him. In no sense, therefore, can the curate be said to have the exclusive care of souls in his district. Whatever his position de facto, de iure he is not independent.
The situation which the paragraph contemplates is a piece of territory in a diocese which does not belong to any parish whatsoever, but which has a church of its own with a duly appointed priest, with all the rights and duties of a parish priest. Many territorial units in England and Wales, which had not been canonically erected as parishes, were formerly of this kind. the priest in charge, or 'rector,' was, however, immediately subject to the bishop of the diocese-- his authority was not subordinate to that of a parish priest for the simple reason that his territory did not form part of any parish. He had all the rights and duties of a parish priest including, as was decided in a case which came before the Sacred Congregation of the Council in 1932, the obligation of the Missa pro populo.  Where such a situation still obtains, that is, where the priest in question is parish priest in all but name, the new power of administering confirmation will be enjoyed by the priest in charge.

[question] After the death of the parish priest and until the next parish priest is appointed, may the curate in charge of the parish confirm dying children? May the bishop empower him to do so? --P.P.
[Answer] The answer to this question is that the priest who has been given charge of a vacant parish by the local ordinary has the power to administer confirmation in danger of death, from the decree Spiritus Sancti Munera.
To appreciate the precise legal position on this point it is necessary to recall the dispositions of the Code for the charge of a parish during an interregnum. The Code says that 'an acting parish priest', called the vicarious oeconomus, should be appointed as soon as possible by the local ordinary. Pending the appointment of this vicarious oeconomus,however, the charge of the parish devolves, in the virtue of canon 472, on the senior curate or on the nearest parish priest. Now, the important point is that it is only the vicarious oeconomus appointed by the local Ordinary, who has the power of confirming-- the priest who has charge of the parish, in virtue of canon 472, pending the appointment of vicarious oeconomus has not the power. It may seem strange that it should be so, but there is little room for doubt on this point; the decree speaks only of the vicarious oeconomus and the Code makes it quite clear that the senior curate, who gets his power from canon 472 immediately the parish priest dies, is not a vicarious oeconomus. The commentators on the decree generally agree that unless and until the is appointed vicarious oeconomus he has not the power of confirming. Of course, it is very often the senior curate who is appointed vicarious oeconomus so that he will normally have charge of the parish for the complete interregnum, first from canon 472 and then in virtue of his appointment as vicarious oeconomus by the local Ordinary. But it is only after he has been appointed to this office that he has the power of confirming.
Conway, William. D.D., D.C.L.. Problems in Canon Law: Classified Replies to Practical Questions.  1956. Brown and Nolan Ltd.: Dublin. Pp 152-54

If a priest confirms without permission, he's suspended.  But this canon doesn't deny he has the faculty (i.e. inherent power) to do so, nor does it say such are invalid.

.
Right, because you're quoting a penal law. The penal section of the code deals with penalties. Several other laws explicitly state that priests who act outside the law confirm invalidly. You would know this if you bothered to do even just a little bit of research into the issue. It is almost like you don't care about the facts of the matter and are more interested in picking fights.

But Trad bishops/priests can set up seminaries, consecrate other bishops, ordain priests, set up schools, etc (all of which are excommunicable offenses and none of which are allowed by canon law) and the response is..."Oh, no problem.  It was necessary; God understands."

But a priest decides to confirm because 1,000s of catholics each year (or over a period of multiple years) can't get confirmation and the response is, "Oh my gracious!  This is such a SCANDAL.  Horrible, no good priest!"

The contradiction is amazing.

.
The concern about penalties is something you brought up. Not I, nor anyone else who takes the other side of the issue, has ever once said that the penalty for confirming without the pope's approval is too severe to risk it. The reason we are opposed to priestly confirmations is that priests only confirm validly if and when the pope empowers them to, and the priests we are discussing do not enjoy that empowerment, ergo any attempts they make to confirm will be totally null.
.
It seems as though a separate thread might be necessary to discuss the broader issue of traditionalist ministries and their relationship to the law.

As usual, the holy oil is consecrated by the Bishop, in the case of Fr Raphael.

From which bishop does Fr. Raphael get his oils? 

Just FYI, not knowing any local traditionalist canonists, I wrote an email on this subject to a conservative Cardinal I once met. 

He's a conciliarist, but as he's also a canon lawyer, perhaps he will offer something useful (or not).

If he responds, I will post his reply. 

.
I believe the 1983 code has a very liberalized approach to priestly confirmations. Those who accept its authority (I personally do not) can likely appeal to it with ease to validate priestly confirmations. 

Not a trad, but Pete Vere has an account here.