I think you probably don't understand me because you may continue to believe the Roman Catholic church is the only "true" church. I'm not unaware of the semantics game some Roman Catholics play when they are talking about "the one holy catholic apostolic church" (note lower case). It becomes necessary to define terms first before any agreement can be made over the point. For example, if you asked Iraeneus back in 125 A.D. to describe the faith he held, he would probably have used words like "catholic" and "apostolic". Catholic meaning "of the whole" or "universal" and apostolic meaning began by an actual Apostle of Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the laying on of hands, ordaining leaders to guide the local assembly of the believers in that area. The basic rule of faith that was held by these believers can ALL be found clearly taught in the Bible. Any Apostolic succession that happened was one of the passing on of that rule of faith tradition and not simply a title or position of authority. The authority and power was found in the gospel as it was written down under Divine inspiration for all believers after the only apostles were gone.
Two thousand years later, certain people have developed an elitist group that they call the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (note the capitals), based in Rome and assert IT is the one the Apostles established back in that first century and nobody can be saved unless they are also members of this specific church, submit to its one global leader and follow all the rules they have declared are mandatory. They claim "they" have the fullness of the faith and every church outside is not a "true" church even though many of these other churches believe the EXACT same things that first century church did. This was NOT how the New Testament churches operated for the first three or four hundred years. It's only been in the last century that Rome has made overtures to other churches such as the Orthodox and Anglican to "rejoin" the communion of Rome, but prior to that, these "separated" churches were condemned as apostate and heretical.
You want me to "take a stab" at identifying which of the thousands out there are "bona fide" churches but you only want those that match the model of the Roman Catholic church (RCC) - which you have asserted is THE church Jesus established. I reject your whole premise of the RCC being the "model" in the first place. What we SHOULD be looking at is which churches match the New Testament model - which IS what Christ established upon Himself as the cornerstone. Since we have both "wheat and tares" growing together among all the assemblies of Christians - it should be fairly obvious that it CAN'T be one, single denomination that contains ONLY wheat. Instead, we have to look at what is preached and taught within those assemblies to know whether or not they are following the model of the NT church. The way we can know that is to look at their statements of faith, their creeds and how closely they follow the Scriptural model within the members of the congregations. What we will arrive at is a good idea of whether or not any single church is a "bona fide" representation of a New Testament church and, if it is, the greater likelihood that it will contain more wheat than tares.
I don't know how to explain it any better than that. If you are looking for me to tell you the Southern Baptist Church is THE one holy catholic apostolic church, then I won't, but neither is the Roman Catholic church. I do believe the Sountern Baptist church is a bona fide church because I know what they teach is the Christian faith. Christ's body WILL contain only the redeemed children of God - there won't be ANY weeds or goats among them. This holy, spotless, bride of Christ is already in union with Christ. It is HIS spiritual temple of which EACH and EVERY believer is a living stone. THAT is what God's word tells us.
Taught by whom ? Which of the thousands of denominations, sects, and cults has an unbroken chain of teaching this "basic rule of faith" ?
Any Apostolic succession that happened was one of the passing on of that rule of faith tradition and not simply a title or position of authority. The authority and power was found in the gospel as it was written down under Divine inspiration for all believers after the only apostles were gone.
So you say, and many fell into the trap of thinking themselves Apostles, that everything written in the Scriptures was written to them personally because of the use of second person pronouns. Silly women imagining themselves Apostles, etc. yet the LORD Jesus told Peter in the presence of the other Apostles And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The problem with the Southern Baptist Convention or any of the baptist conventions, associations, fellowships, alliances, and churches is history. Where is the unbroken chain of legitimacy that they have since adopted ? Can you even form a baptist church except you start it from another church ? Certainly the Independent Fundamental Baptists believe you must have an authentic church to birth another authentic church. Do Southern Baptists hold to that ? Even Westboro Baptist Church (an Independent, Fundamental Baptist Church which adheres to the Baptists creeds was started under the auspices of another Baptist church). Baptists may have great churches but are they really authentic holy catholic apostolic churches ? If they are, how can the others be as new denominations, sects, and unfortunately cults (can we say Bill Gothard here?) are springing up all the time and forming something new; even the Mormons, a bona fide American frontier new religion has established itself by protesting not only the RCC, but the Protestants to boot; and they have their own historical fantasy all written down; the Baptist model seems to have surrendered any historicity of an unbroken chain of apostolic witness in a holy catholic apostolic church that prevailed against the gates of hell. It starts in the first century and then disappears until when ? 1700s ?
I realize how difficult it would be for you to change your convictions after everything you have invested otherwise. I don't expect you to do that. I don't even think the RCC expects you to do that. You should not expect the RCC to deny itself; it truly believes it is the only unbroken chain from the Apostles, excepting the other Orthodox churches that split off in the Great Schism, or something to that effect.