what you do is give an example of a single positive.
The canon law is the one example that matters. The rest are trumped by it.
what is proven is that under some circumstances children of an annulment are indeed deemed illegitimate by the Church
if the Church does not view the marriage as valid and both parties even had doubts prior to entering into the sacrament (note they dont even have to be deceptive but simply have doubts)- then the children that result are illegitimate if the annulment is granted because marriage did not exist
i hate to quip this joab, but hope that helps
Again I don't think that was ever disputed.
The only quip I see is over the "meaning" of the word illegitimate and how it is applied and also what is considered a valid marriage.
What I think you keep missing is that even a civil marriage is considered valid by the Church in which catholic impediments would never apply.
The contrary line of reasoning put forth would make every person not of a sacramental Catholic marriage illegitimate when the Church never states any such thing.
And also, that you are still misunderstanding how the word illegitimate is applied by the Church no matter how many times or ways it is explained to you. You do not seem to understand this is only a legal term in relation to inheritance and paternity.
The Canon as well as the CE you quoted earlier state that even a child of an invalidated marriage are still and always legitimate.
One cannot be made illegitimate by an annulment. Its not possible. They can be considered to have been conceived illegitimately yes, just as if outside of wedlock, but never an illegitimate person.
If a marriage was ever valid, as the Church states, even by man made law, then the child of that marriage, is always considered legitimate/legal in the eyes of the Church. All that changes is how legally they were initially conceived which is not applied to their person.
There is how the Church applies these terms and then how the SSPX does so. I believe I understand these terms the way the Church means them and I have personal experience having been in relationships that I thought were a marriage and never were.
All children are legitimate. And you know, if I really want to get down to scruples about someones marriage I could probably invalidate just about anyones marriage on the basis of what an anullment considers which is all moot because;
This is why the Church says all it takes to make a marriage valid is a justice of the peace cirtificate with stipulations in variation for Christians of baptism and Catholics by degree from there.
One cannot apply for annulment if legaly married.
I'm not really sure whats going on with you here. Perhaps you do not understand that canonical form is unnecessary for a marriage to be valid between two people regardless of where they are married who would never approach an annulment.
Are you considering an annulment in the Church or something? In any event, my attempts to explain are exacerbated as I am at a loss of other ways to explain this to help you understand and overcome any incorrect duplicity of the meaning of terms.
Peace.
I think thats the second or third time isn't it? 
