If I interpret it correctly Citta essentially says
You did not interpret it correctly because Citta here is not expressing a Buddhist view. Read the sutta more carefully. Citta was not a Buddhist when he said what you quoted.
This conclusion contradicts the position that self is an error, illusion or is like a dream because when an error is corrected it
vanishes(self is annihilated).
The sutta discusses the matter of "acquisition of self" (atta paṭilābhā), which is essentially "becoming" (bhava) & "birth" (jati), which is the "wrong path" (SN 12.3) .
For example, when you were a child, you identified yourself as being a "child". But one day, you met a woman & had a child and thus acquired a self or identity as a "husband" and "father". These subjective & conventional self-identities or labels are "acquisitions of self".
In the past, you were not a husband & not a father. Today, you are a husband & a father. In the future, your current wife may divorce you and you will cease to be a husband. These are the acquisitions of self the Buddha appeared to be discussing with the wanderers (non-Buddhists).
These acquisitions of self are wrong views in Buddhism, as follows:
This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having
been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I
not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in
the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else
he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not?
What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it
bound?'MN 2; MN 38; etc
Mara the Evil One... approached her and addressed her in verse:
By whom has this being been created? Where is the maker of the being? Where has the being arisen? Where does the being cease?
Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses:
Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'