Is observing any day by a Reformed Christian tantamount to keeping ceremonial law?

I'm studying Reformed theology. In looking at a collection of Reformed creeds, I'm finding a repeated theme of dividing the Old Testament (OT) commandments into three types: - moral - ceremonial - judicial This classification to my knowledge has not been articulated in the Scriptures, but seems to have been started by the church fathers (and later formalized by Aquinas) in an effort to discern which of the requirements of the OT law were "binding" on Christians and which were "abrogated" by Jesus' death on the cross. Leaving out (for the purposes of my questions) the so called "judicial" commandments, I'm seeking to reconcile the historical Reformed theology within its own boundaries on its stance on the division between moral and ceremonial requirements of the law as pertaining to observing a weekly day of rest by Christians. The 4th Commandment of the Decalogue is usually classified as part of "ceremonial" law. For example, the Geneva Catechism, 1542 (quoted from Ligonier Ministries, “We Believe.” ) states regarding the 4th Commandment: > 168. M. But does he [God] forbid us any labour on that day [Saturday]? C. This commandment has a distinct and peculiar reason. In so far as the observation of rest was a part of the ceremonial law; it was abrogated at the coming of Christ. > 169. M. Do you say that this commandment respected the Jews only, and was therefore merely temporary? C. Yes, so far as it was ceremonial. In other words, "ceremonial" requirements seem to be equated with "abrogated" (non-binding on Christians) as opposed to "moral" requirements that are still binding. The Geneva Catechism doesn't spell out what nullifies the mandate of the 4th Commandment to observe the original Sabbath for Reformed Christians, but other Reformed confessions do. They seem to follow the interpretation of Paul's words (e.g., Romans 14:5, Galatians 4:10) that teaches that observation of days "as such" is contrary to Christian teaching. For example, the Second Helvetic Confession, 1566 (ibid.) states: > Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish observation of the day or to any superstitions. For we do not account one day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is of itself liked of God. However, as we read texts of other (later) Reformed creeds, we find that observation of days is not at all abrogated. For example, on one hand, when it comes to its views on the law of God writ large, the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646-47 still supports the classification/division of the OT commandments noted earlier (ibid.): > 2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. > 3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament. However, when addressing the 4th Commandment specifically, the Westminster Confession, 1646-47 (ibid.) states, emphasis supplied: > 7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, **moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages**, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him... In other words, while maintaining that portions of the Ten Commandment (i.e., the 4th Commandment) are "ceremonial," Westminster Confession (as well as the Savoy Declaration, 1658 and the Second London Baptist Confession, 1677/1689 that followed it) seems to seek to impose its mandate (albeit altering the day which they propose to be kept) on Christians. So the questions that I have are these: 1. Is Westminster's stance on the subject of 4th Commandment still an authoritative view in the Reformed churches? If not, what superseded it and how does it differ from Westminster on the subject? 2. If the 4th Commandment is considered to be "ceremonial," why would it be extended to Reformed Christians as "moral" and binding (even if applied to another day)? 3. If the 4th Commandment is viewed to be both "ceremonial" and "moral" at the same time (held to be teaching/binding Christians to observe one day per week, just not the original Sabbath), how are Paul's words (e.g., Romans 14:5 or Galatians 4:10) not taken to condemn observation of any other day as the Lord's Day in the same way they are taken to condemn observing the original Sabbath?