Secondly, Webster finds himself in a pickle regarding his approach to Sola Scriptura, once one looks at the works of the Early Church Fathers in their entirety. He makes the claim that "Sola scriptura was the universal teaching of the church Fathers and for the church as a whole through the later Middle Ages." If this is the case, then he must take one of the following three positions:
1) Since the Fathers used Sola Scriptura, the other doctrines that they advocated (Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, saving efficacy of Baptism, ordination of clergy, use of images in worship, etc) should also be believed, since they were ultimately derived by this method.
2) That the mode of thought used by the Fathers (namely SS) which led to the doctrines that Webster refuses to accept must itself be flawed and thus unworthy of conveying the Gospel - thus Sola Scriptura ought be rejected.
3) That the Fathers, as evidenced by the rest of their theological positions, obviously did not advocate Sola Scriptura as Webster understands it, and that it is a later theological novelty. This would make Webster's portrayal of history inaccurate at best, and maliciously dishonest at worst.
Which is it? Webster wishes to have his cake and eat it too.
I personally choose #3 - but further discussion of this dilemma can be found on this page, which discusses the illogical approach that Webster takes.
In short, YES, Webster did leave the Holy Catholic Church.
Since you're new, I don't know what your MO is - but if you want to actually DISCUSS what Catholics believe, you would be better off avoiding anti-Catholics (and especially EX-Catholics, who tend to be rabidly anti-Catholic) and instead look at what the Church REALLY teaches, by going and reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church (available online), the documents of the Councils, and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
Roman Catholic theologian, Louis Bouyer, likewise confirms this, writing:
it is right to insist that this narrow ‘biblicism’ is by no means to be confused with the affirmation that the Bible, and in one sense the Bible alone, is the ‘Word of God’ more directly and fully than any of its other expressions, since it alone is so inspired by God as to have him for its author. In making their own this assertion, and giving it the vigour and emphasis so characteristic of their doctrine, the Protestant reformers did not go beyond the unanimous verdict of Judaism on the Old Testament, once constituted, and of the Fathers and theologians on the Bible as a whole. The cautious reservations introduced by modern Catholic writers, as a result of the controversies of the sixteenth century, cannot disguise the fact that the Protestants, in the positive statements we refer to, say no more than the unanimous ecclesiastical tradition
The Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine above all, themselves practiced that devotion derived from Scripture, whose ideal the Protestants steadily upheld; they hardly knew any other. No doubt they were much more careful than many Protestants not to isolate the Word of God in its settled form of Scripture from its living form in the Church, particularly in the liturgy. But, this reserve apart they were no less enthusiastic, or insistent, or formal, in recommending this use of Scripture and in actually promoting it. Particularly from St. John Chrysostom, one might assemble exhortations and injunctions couched in the most forcible terms; they have often been recalled by those Protestants, from the sixteenth century onwards, the best grounded in Christian antiquity. It would be impossible to find, even among Protestants, statements more sweeping than those in which St. Jerome abounds: Ignoratio scripturarum, ignoratio Christi is doubtless the most lapidary, but not necessarily the most explicit.
What is more, in this case just as when the authority of Scripture is viewed as the foundation of theology, the constant practice of the Church, in the Middle Ages as well as in the patristic times, is a more eloquent witness than all the doctors. In the same way that Popes, Councils, theologians, always resorted to the scriptural argument as the really fundamental one, the practice of the great spiritual writers of every epoch attests the fully traditional character of a devotion based on the Bible. Writers as eminent and influential as Origen in the East and Augustine in the West equally prove the truth of this. Their entire spirituality in both cases is but an immense meditation on Scripture. The same is true of the great teachers of the Middle Ages, who often enough are disciples of both, as was St. Bernard. We can apply to them all that we said of the best of Protestant spirituality: not only did they know the Bible and make abundant use of it, but they moved in it as in a spiritual world that formed the habitual universe of all their thoughts and sentiments. For them, it was not simply one source among others, but the source par excellence, in a sense the only one.
Probably just a re-tread.