It says he is eternal. I don't know where it says he is "timeless." Perhaps you have a source?
"..but He does not exist
in time, so as to be subject to temporal relations: His self-existence is timeless." From the Catholic Encyclopedia. Augustine and Boethius both advocated a timeless view. Anselm aslo had a timeless view of God. Aquinas as well.
It is because God is eternal that He is timeless. The concept is littered in the above mentioned's works. I haven't seen many Catholics, especially ones I've talked to on here or have seen comments of, say otherwise.
You've implied it. I already addressed why
here.
No, you say I imply it when I have not and claimed nothing of the sort. I said God without the universe does not move but that He could.
And I questioned that to which no reply was given. I asked for evidence for your idea and got none. Until then it's not appropriately addressed.
I am suggesting, via Ratzinger, that your understanding of timelessness with respect to God is flawed. For example, you think God moves and that his motion is measured by time:
What you quoted was a question I proposed to the OP, who earlier in the thread agreed that God is outside of time (as well as temporal), to expand on what he thinks it means for God to be atemporal.
When I said "All God has to do is act or move and time is created as a result" it was in relation to my earlier claim that for events to occur, time must exist. The moment of creation is when God first moves which thus could not be measured by anything let alone time yet specifically from His will. At any rate, obviously that is not God in an atemporal state, so that couldn't be what I think of timelessness as you oddly suggest.
As Ratzinger points out, that rationale is distinctively modern. I'm opposing the clump of problems associated with the claim, "God is timeless until he moves."
Then I'd have to point out you are both incorrect and the idea of divine timelessness is rooted in historical theology writings, especially from the above theologians mentioned. So far, I don't think you're doing a stand up job of opposing much of that.
Many of the positions in this thread are manifesting as somewhat undisciplined thoughts about time. Presumably very few have historical philosophical pedigree. Because of this I don't intend to get into long arguments with any number of intuitions about time, but would rather simply encourage folks to familiarize themselves with one or more established positions in order to provide some coherent sources (and premises) for their beliefs.
I haven't said much of time except for what I told you I did above. You keep being critical of views of time yet aren't stating your own or any other logical concept of what it could then be.