Muug,
The difference between path analysis and SEM is that in SEM you estimate the measurement model (the CFA, more or less) simultaneously with the structural model (the path model, more or less).
What I think you're suggesting is running the CFA, creating observed scores based on it, then entering them into the path analysis. This has a few drawbacks, one of which is a well-fitting CFA is much less constrained than the model implied by taking observed scores, unelss you go out of your way to impose them. One implication is that the measurement model you're actually putting into use (sum scores, or whatever it is), is not actually the model tested by the CFA.
There are other important differences, but I think that's one of the big ones for your question: You won't actually be testing the measurement model you're using.
That said, if you are willing to accept previous measurement work as valid without examining it in your data, you can still go straight to path analysis. SEM has other advantages, including distilling the unreliability and minimizing bias caused by it, but skipping the measurement step is common in many fields.
Pat