Protestant interpretations...

[kepha1]

All of the following quotations are from Protestant biblical scholars.

William Hendriksen

member of the Reformed Christian Church

Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, "And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church." Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.

New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647

JPK page 14

Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.

“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”

Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context

(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58

JPK pages 16-17

Donald A. Carson III

Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368

JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78

JPK page 18

John Peter Lange

German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun… The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.

Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8

(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293

JPK page 19

 

[kepha1]

John A. Broadus
Baptist author

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

ALL SAY “PETER IS THE ROCK” ON WHICH
THE CHURCH IS BUILT

( and I would add that Jesus does the building)

users.stargate.net/~elcore/kephas.htm

 

[Des]

You were making more sense before. Jesus also told them to obey Caesar. It was not to say Caesar spoke for God tho, was it.

Luke made perfect sense. Jesus wanted them to give to Cesar what belonged to him (secular things) and obey the ones sitting in the Chair of Moses (Spiritual things). You missed the ‘Chair of Moses’ part obviously.

*Matt 23: 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: **The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. *3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

 

[Ginger2]

Hello Ginger,

what is your source for saying this. How can one verify if this is true?

You would have to read the Peshitta and compare the verses translating these words.

There are advantages to using the Peshitta for comparison and disadvantages. One advantage is in studying the perceived discrepancies in Biblical genealogy.

As for the assertions in grammar, it is impossible for either of us to prove anything as one scholar suggest this and the other that. And as history has shown in the past, scholars may by majority hold a certain opinion only to change their minds later.

The idea that Hebrew was a lost language by the time of Jesus and that speaking Greek was common place, is just a theory.

Acts 21:37
Just as Paul was about to be taken into the compound, he said to the cohort commander, “May I say something to you?” He replied, "Do you speak Greek?
38
So then you are not the Egyptian who started a revolt some time ago and led the four thousand assassins into the desert?"
39
Paul answered, “I am a Jew, of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; I request you to permit me to speak to the people.”
40
When he had given his permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned with his hand to the people; and when all was quiet he addressed them in Hebrew.

The RC claims the word “Hebrew” really means “Aramaic”.

But I doubt that:

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, **Eloi, Eloi, **lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The NT records this event in both Aramaic and Hebrew. The question is which is accurate to the words Jesus actually spoke.

As usual, the best why to discern is to read it in context. In this case we can learn from what the eyewitnesses say:

Those who heard Jesus speak responded, Mark 15:35 “Some of those who stood by, when they heard that, said, ‘Look, He is calling for Elijah!’”
In Hebrew Eli can be either “My God” or an abbreviation for “Elijah”. In Aramaic Eloi distinctly means “My God.” Since the listeners thought Jesus was calling for Elijah, it can only mean Jesus was speaking in Hebrew.

But, I think we are getting off track…

 

[Ginger2]

The OP ask for an explanation as to why Protestants interpret petros and petra differently in Matthew 16:17, 18

I explained my position. It is two different words, not the feminine and masculine forms of the same word.

i’ll see if I can find some examples later today.

 

[LionHeart777]

As for the assertions in grammar, it is impossible for either of us to prove anything as one scholar suggest this and the other that. And as history has shown in the past, scholars may by majority hold a certain opinion only to change their minds later.

hmm. so then why do you conclude that Jimmy Akin was wrong in what he said?

 

[Ginger2]

hmm. so then why do you conclude that Jimmy Akin was wrong in what he said?

from my personal studies of Koine Greek - not of Scriptures, but of the language.

Greek has changed over time as do all languages. But, there is no real evidence for the idea petros and petra started out as two words derived from the same root into two forms of one word.

Also, Ancient/koine Greek, used os endings for some feminine words, (ie elpidos is femine for hope) so an “os” ending in and of itself is not an indication that word is in the masculine form, as it would in for example modern Spanish.

To compare ancient dialects to modern languages can often confuse the issue.

I should add that I studied this from a secular view, so the Scriptures were not an issue.

Whereas, your “research” is coming from a religious perspective that may be blurred by bias and motivated by a desire to justify an existing belief.

 

[LionHeart777]

But again,

the Greek is not as relevant as the Aramaic IMO, as I showed you before that according to Eusebius’ “History of the Church”, Mathew wrote his Gospel in “his native tongue.” (Which is presumed to be Aramaic…certainly not Greek.)

To me, the Catholic interpretation accounts for the authoritative way in which the early Bishops of Rome acted (Clement, Stephen, etc.)

perhaps I will do some more investigating. Thanks for the resources/comments.

 

[PJM]

=Ginger2;That would be a very good explanation if the information presented was factual and true, but it is not.

There are different words used for big and little rock formations in Aramaic, also. If you look at the Peshitta and compare Gospel verses translating the words petra and petros, you can clearly see the difference, which suggests Matthew 16:18 is a translation error.

However, that is a lot of work. It might be easier to see what the rest of the Scriptures claim about who is the rock:

Luk 8:13 They on the rock (petra) [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (petra)was Christ.

Now, the RC says Peter was a man and could not be referred to as “petra” as it is the feminine form of the word. Yet, Christ Jesus, who is also male, is referred to as “petra”

***This is a valid point! And one can see that a non-believer might take it this way.

However when one searches “Christ” [not “rock”] among the many variations of the term are these. “ROCK” has to desigation with the term “Christ” which one should do inorder to keep the word in proper context.

"3056. logos log’-os from 3004; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):–account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

1. Messias mes-see’-as of **Hebrew origin (***4899); the Messias (i.e. Mashiach), or Christ:–Messias. "

**1 Cor. 10: 4 **“and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” **

FROM Young’s Literal Greek translation {“YLT” v.18 "*** 18`And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;***

From Strong’s Commentary: “Peter”
Hebrew = “6363 peter peh’-ter or pitrah {pit-raw’}; from 6362; a fissure, i.e. (concretely) firstling (as opening the matrix):–firstling, openeth, such as open.”

Greek= "2786. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas.

1. Petros pet’-ros apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Compare 2786. "

Further "Petros is male gender while “Petra” is female gender.

Love and prayers,

 

[CalCatholic]

Someone said Peter is mentioned more than any other Apostle. That is not true. Paul is mentioned more than Peter, unless you count as two mentions when Peter is referred to once as Simon Peter or Simon called Peter.

Each of those instances is one individual mention.

However, I did count instances of “Simon, Simon” as two.

But, I’m not sure what difference it makes. Protestants could point out that Paul wrote far more Scripture than Peter.

Yes, but at the time that Jesus said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”, Paul was a Pharisee. Believe me I am not trying to deminish Paul’s role as an Apostle, but Peter is the successor to Jesus here on earth, (in his own words in Sacred Scripture). Paul is a later Apostle.

 

[PJM]

=kepha1;5675850]So, I’ll cut to the chase.

Regardless of external appearances, anti-popes never held the Chair of Peter.
Such as?Popes are popes for life. Dead popes can’t consecrate anything.
Again, a dead anti-pope can’t consecrate anything. What you fail to understand is that the true Papacy can only be succeeded by a legitimate (dead) Pope, regardless of the time gap and how many anti-popes claimed to be pope.

Pope Honorius never taught error. He lived as a solid churchman and died with his reputation intact. He was buried with honors in St. Peter’s basillica. It was not until 20 years after his death that his letters to Sergius became an issue. By that time, Pope Honorius’ attempt to prevent schism and keep the Monothelites in the Church was seen to have failed. His leniency had to be condemned. But I defy you to show me one single Magisterial document in which the Catholic Church officially taught error in this case. There are none. The letters to Sergius were not magisterial documents BY DESIGN. Pope Honorius was trying to keep the matter informal to avoid open conflict and possible schism.
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ButlerOnCaseOfPopeHonorius.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ248.HTM
http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/limits.html
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3301
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm

After several hours of searching, I have to conclude that this quote is not from Pope Adrian VI, but from Dave Hunt who claims the quote to be of Pope Adrian VI, and Dave Hunt is a malicious anti-Catholic. Even if the statement were true, a pope can have a heretical OPINION, but never a false teaching. Protestants are constantly confusing impeccability with infallibility. They are NOT the same.

Excellent reply. Thanks.

Its so much easier when the truth is on your side

 

[Ginger2]

But again,

the Greek is not as relevant as the Aramaic IMO, …Mathew wrote his Gospel in “his native tongue.” (Which is presumed to be Aramaic…certainly not Greek.)

Assuming Matthew wrote first in his native tongue, is not a problem for me.

The issue is there are no copies of the original text to see what it actually said. Instead scholars seem to look at the Aramaic translations of the Greek to prove or disprove any particular interpretation of the Greek.

This is obviously backward and not a reliable way to determine the original words.

Furthermore, as I have already stated, it is very likely first century Jews were still speaking Hebrew. Is there any credible evidence “Hebrew” in the NT really means "Aramaic? Not just assumptions and “probably’s”, but real historical evidence.

CLICK TO SEE POST

Ginger

 

[po18guy]

Came across this on some anti-Catholic protestant site. The site itself has quite a few ignorant claims (the usual- worship of the saints, priests, etc.) but this kind of caught my eye. Could somebody explain this?
It’s regarding Peter’s papacy:

" Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do YE say that I am?” It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then said our Lord, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.
In Greek, Peter is petros, masculine gender, defined as a small rock, one that can be picked up and skipped across the surface of a pond. It is a derivative of the root word,
petra, feminine gender, defined as massive foundation rock. If we insert Greek definitions for petros and petra, what our Lord said in Matthew 16:18 reads like this: “Thou art Little Rock, and upon this Massive Foundation Rock I will build my Church.”
To the most respected theologians of the early Church, the Massive Foundation Rock of
Matthew 16:18 was not Peter, but Peter’s statement of FACT – “Thou art the Christ, (Jewish Messiah) the Son of the living God.” That Jesus was and is the Messiah promised in Genesis, that He was and is the Son of God incarnate, are, in fact, the very foundation of Christianity. And that is exactly what was taught in opposition to Calixtus 1 by Cyril, Hilary, Tertullian, Jerome, (producer of the Latin Vulgate Bible), Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and the much-honored Greek scholar, Chrysostom. "

Here is a link to a thread in which this false argument is utterly destroyed. To shorten the time in reading it, you might read only the replies by Claudius and Ronyodish from about post 133 onward. Please take the time. It is absolutely worth it. In it, the truth, and not man’s egocentric preferences, is served.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277

 

[Ginger2]

Here is a link to a thread in which this false argument is utterly destroyed. To shorten the time in reading it, you might read only the replies by Claudius and Ronyodish from about post 133 onward. Please take the time. It is absolutely worth it. In it, the truth, and not man’s egocentric preferences, is served.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277

Could you just post the pertinent comments or the post #s? I scanned the first four pages and found nothing from the two posters you mentioned, then jumped to the last page and still found nothing.

Thanks.

 

[Ginger2]

…

How can I place my faith and trust in a church that teaches,
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”(Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).Pope!!!

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought … calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. …God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, …” (St. Catherine)

After several hours of searching, I have to conclude that this quote is not from Pope Adrian VI, but from Dave Hunt who claims the quote to be of
PJM;5677226:

Excellent reply. Thanks.

Its so much easier when the truth is on your side

Yes indeed it is.
Please see this link. Pope Adrian VI is not the only one to make this claim.
newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm

 

[GottaGo12345678]

When ever this argument surfaces, I wonder why the next few versus are not included.

“and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”

“Whatever you bind on earth with be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth with be loosed in heaven.”

Or why the last verse, which the original article the poster brought forth confirms what Jesus meant by what He said, verse 20 of Matthew 16 reads “Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.” Isn’t that the profession that Peter just made? Apparently it was revealed to all the apostles because He warned all of them not to tell He was the Christ.

There is a single “key” or “authority from heaven” that opens the entrance to heaven; the keys are in plural because it is given to a plurality of apostles and later in Matthew 18; the plurality of all Christians.

This is why the word “key” is singular:
Isaiah 22:22 “Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open.” This is the authority, which comes out of heaven as I mentioned above. This is not that complicated or tricky, but it is truly amazing how a church can be built from a single verse in scripture taken out of its context.

Does this accord with Scripture and what we actually see practiced in the real world? If you add Matthew 18, where Jesus is preaching to a crowd, as evidenced by the fact that a little child was handy and He was repeating verbatim many of the things preached earlier, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). The loose and bind pertains to all who can give the gospel account, which the gospel is the power and authority, “key”, that originates from heaven and spread throughout the world according to His purpose and His sovereign will.

 

[Ginger2]

After several hours of searching, I have to conclude that this quote is not from Pope Adrian VI, but from Dave Hunt who claims the quote to be of Pope Adrian VI, …

Well, that’s a first. I’ve never had anyone deny Adrian said this before, only that it wasn’t an ex-cathedral statement and therefore is irrelevent - that is why I I bolded the word “decretal”.

So the Catholic position is no longer that Adrian’s statement was his personal opinion? The new answer is that he never said it???

rewriting history may make it harder for Protestants to expose fallacies and contradiction, but it doesn’t change truth.

Ginger

 

[Luke65]

Or why the last verse, which the original article the poster brought forth confirms what Jesus meant by what He said, verse 20 of Matthew 16 reads “Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.” Isn’t that the profession that Peter just made? Apparently it was revealed to all the apostles because He warned all of them not to tell He was the Christ.

There is a single “key” or “authority from heaven” that opens the entrance to heaven; the keys are in plural because it is given to a plurality of apostles and later in Matthew 18; the plurality of all Christians.

This is why the word “key” is singular:
Isaiah 22:22 “Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open.” This is the authority, which comes out of heaven as I mentioned above. This is not that complicated or tricky, but it is truly amazing how a church can be built from a single verse in scripture taken out of its context.

Does this accord with Scripture and what we actually see practiced in the real world? If you add Matthew 18, where Jesus is preaching to a crowd, as evidenced by the fact that a little child was handy and He was repeating verbatim many of the things preached earlier, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). The loose and bind pertains to all who can give the gospel account, which the gospel is the power and authority, “key”, that originates from heaven and spread throughout the world according to His purpose and His sovereign will.

You are twisting and distorting Scripture to suit your own personal interpretation. The word “keys” is plural, but the word “you” is singular - Peter. And nowhere does our Lord give the Keys of the Kingdom to anyone but Peter - you’re making that up. And why is “keys” in the plural? That’s easy:

“I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” (Revelation 1:18)

And our Lord Jesus shares His power and authority with His Church, and ultimately with the successor of Peter - the Pope.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

po18guy:

Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
Here is a link to a thread in which this false argument is utterly destroyed. To shorten the time in reading it, you might read only the replies by Claudius and Ronyodish from about post 133 onward. Please take the time. It is absolutely worth it. In it, the truth, and not man’s egocentric preferences, is served.

Could you just post the pertinent comments or the post #s? I scanned the first four pages and found nothing from the two posters you mentioned, then jumped to the last page and still found nothing.

Thanks.

Ac 21:40 -
When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,

Ac 22:2
And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he *said,

Ac 26:14
"And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

Ac 1:19
And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.

Ac 2:6
And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.

Ac 2:8
"And how is it that we each hear {them} in our own language to which we were born?

Ac 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Ac 2:11
Cretans and Arabs–we hear them in our {own} tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."

Rev. 7:9
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and {all} tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches {were} in their hands;

Re 17:15
And he *said to me, "The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are ***peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. ***

 

[GottaGo12345678]

So, I’ll cut to the chase.

Regardless of external appearances, anti-popes never held the Chair of Peter.
Such as?Popes are popes for life. Dead popes can’t consecrate anything.
Again, a dead anti-pope can’t consecrate anything. What you fail to understand is that the true Papacy can only be succeeded by a legitimate (dead) Pope, regardless of the time gap and how many anti-popes claimed to be pope.

Pope Honorius never taught error. He lived as a solid churchman and died with his reputation intact. He was buried with honors in St. Peter’s basillica. It was not until 20 years after his death that his letters to Sergius became an issue. By that time, Pope Honorius’ attempt to prevent schism and keep the Monothelites in the Church was seen to have failed. His leniency had to be condemned. But I defy you to show me one single Magisterial document in which the Catholic Church officially taught error in this case. There are none. The letters to Sergius were not magisterial documents BY DESIGN. Pope Honorius was trying to keep the matter informal to avoid open conflict and possible schism.
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ButlerOnCaseOfPopeHonorius.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ248.HTM
http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/limits.html
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3301
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm

After several hours of searching, I have to conclude that this quote is not from Pope Adrian VI, but from Dave Hunt who claims the quote to be of Pope Adrian VI, and Dave Hunt is a malicious anti-Catholic. Even if the statement were true, a pope can have a heretical OPINION, but never a false teaching. Protestants are constantly confusing impeccability with infallibility. They are NOT the same.

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal.”(Diet of Nuremburg in 1522)

Indeed, in the entire history of the Church there are no precedents for requests for forgiveness by the Magisterium for past wrongs. Councils and papal decrees applied sanctions, to be sure, to abuses of which clerics and laymen were found guilty, and many pastors sincerely strove to correct them. However, the occasions when ecclesiastical authorities – Pope, Bishops, or Councils – have openly acknowledged the faults or abuses which they themselves were guilty of, have been quite rare. One famous example is furnished by the reforming Pope Adrian VI who acknowledged publicly in a message to the Diet of Nuremberg of November 25, 1522, “the abominations, the abuses…and the lies” of which the “Roman court” of his time was guilty, “deep-rooted and extensive…sickness,” extending “from the top to the members.”(7) Adrian VI deplored the faults of his times, precisely those of his immediate predecessor Leo X and his curia, without, however, adding a request for pardon.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html