Of course there's going to be consensus when only one opinion is allowed.
We see that even today in much of the climate change and ToF fraud being perpetrated on us. Dissenting opinions are simply not permitted.
Claiming there's consensus when the Catholic church had a monopoly on Scripture and only permitted one viewpoint is meaningless.
The consensus was arrived at in the early centuries and confirmed in the 4th. But if you complain that this confirmation in the 4th century stifled debate, you are left with the question, “who decides?” Without the authority of the Church, which I believe comes from God, there is no authority. We are thus left without assurance of what is and what is not Scripture. And how can an uncertain canon of Scripture be an infallible rule of faith? Do you not see the dilemma?