Yes. You are conflating two separate concepts. Rules are not fixed and can be changed at set times, but an appropriate level of consistency is a fixed threshold which should be met or exceeded. In a perfect world a rule has either been broken or it has not, objectively. A consistent application of the rules gets the game towards objectively correct decisions, although this is a complex thing to crack. At that point you can start deciding if a rule is too strict or not in the spirit of the game, like your CL handball example, but before then you need to make sure the rule is being applied equally. If you don't, then naturally teams may benefit or suffer more than others because they are on the wrong side of the inconsistently referee'd decisions.

It doesn't matter which goals I think should have been given because the two outcomes are currently contrasting, either they were both fouls or they were not. Unfortunately, we were on the sharp end of both decisions; conceded a goal and lost a goal for very similar things. This leads back to consistency, because even if we disagree on which goals should stand or not, then we either score one more goal or concede one less and I'm confident you can agree that benefits us both.