Consider Divine Command Theory:
(DCT) An act is right iff (and because) God commands it.
Armed with Parfit's distinction between right-making features and the property of being right, there are two very different ways of reading this:
(1) as a reductive meta-ethical theory, where the right-hand-side provides an analysis of rightness (the property of being right) itself. On this interpretation, DCT claims that what it is for an act to be right just is for it to be commanded by God. (The simplest version of this view would have it be true "by definition". But Robert Adams has also suggested a more sophisticated version, which begins by analysing the conceptual role of 'rightness', and then claims that 'being commanded by God' is the actual property that best fits the role.)
(2) as merely a normative theory, which presupposes an understanding of what rightness is, and instead merely seeks to inform us of what things in the world have this property (and why). For example, suppose one thought that obedience to authority was the sole virtue. Then, if it turns out that God exists as the ultimate authority, then this prior moral principle might lead one to conclude that one ought to do whatever God commands. But this version of the view doesn't entail that God is the source of the moral truths, or anything like that. He merely features in their content.
DCT provides a simple illustration of the distinction, but it is by no means the only theory with this potential ambiguity. Compare Humean desire accounts of normativity, for example, or various forms of "moral relativism" (/"cultural command theory"). These may be interpreted either as reductive meta-ethical theories, or as autonomous first-order normative views. The latter would be rather unmotivated, of course. (If you're going to accept full-blown normativity, you may as well posit a more intuitive account of what things have it.) Though, personally, I don't find the meta-ethical versions all that much more appealing (such alleged "reductions" of the normative always look to me more like eliminations).
Anyway, I figure it's an interesting distinction to make explicit.