As someone who went from Anglicanism to Romanism, and then came back, I have great reservations and concerns about these sorts of things. Changing churches is not like changing shirts. There is a different ethos in the Roman Church that takes a lot of getting used to and can be quite spiritually disconcerting for some. The authority of Rome, which is usually touted as the reason for converting, is not understood or thought through very well by many converts.
The reason Anglicanism is found wanting is because there is no central authority to call the shots, as it were, hence all of the doctrinal confusion in the area of morality and (to a lesser extent) doctrine. Affirming the authority of the Scripture and Tradition in the classic Anglican and Orthodox sense isn't good enough for these folk, because the question remains as to how the Scriptures and Tradition are to be interpreted, and who is supposed to do it in a way that is normative for the life of the Church. So related to the question of authority is the question of interpretation, or hermeneutics: who does it, and how is it to be done?
What many converts to Rome fail to realize is that papal pronouncements, encyclicals, etc. all have to be interpreted as well. Nowhere was this clearer than with the recent "motu proprio" which freed Roman ministers to say the old Tridentine mass. The pope released what appeared to be a very clear statement regarding the use of that liturgy, but almost immediately he had to issue a follow up statement explaining how it was to be interpreted and understood! And no doubt he will have to keep on doing it, and will have to issue explanations of the explanation, and so on. And when he dies, it will be even harder to understand what he originally intended and meant. One can only begin to imagine the incredible complexity and difficulty of interpreting Medieval and Modern encyclicals, etc. Indeed, as we discussed in seminary, many encyclicals and pronouncements have simply been quietly consigned to the ecclesiastical basement because it is easier to do that than to try to reconcile them with later advances in human knowledge.
So there is a very basic hermeneutical problem that cannot be resolved simply by "swimming the Tiber". The excellent book by Fr. Francis Sulliven, Creative Fidelity (required reading in Roman seminaries), is about this very subject - how are the primary sources of theology to be weighed and interpreted. It is a very difficult and confusing subject, and once one actually gets into it he realizes how it is not quite so easy to say, "The pope says..., the pope says..., the pope says...". (He also raises an interesting question concerning WO. Quoting JPII, he says that the Roman Church "has no authority" to ordain women. (!) In an age when the apparent "authority" of Rome is touted as the answer to everything it is very intriguing to think of something that she does not have the "authority" to decide.)
Now I am not suggesting for one minute that Anglicans, the Orthodox, or other Christians do not have hermeneutical and epistemological issues in knowing and doing God's will because we do. But the Roman Church has the same problem, only pushed back another level.
