Yes. It is really interesting isn’t it? In context, Bhante @Akaliko made perfect sense to me.
Personally I think both statements:
and
have their flaws when taken out of context.
In suttas such as sn22.59 we get this idea of a progression.
What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.”
“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Suffering, sir.”
“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”
So you have this idea that the five aggregates are not fit to be regarded as self due to their nature as impermanent and hence dukkha, and of course, for the arahant there is no possessiveness or constructing at all.
So maybe they are both right? Or maybe they are both wrong? 
I remember a time when we used to use (capital S) Self (for permanent soul type concept) and (lowercase s) self (for identity type concept) as two separate concepts, but that seems to have gone out of fashion.