Fundamentals be discerned with first, the rejection of certain apocrypha lies tad away from the usual concerns - heresy of doctrine.
If one were to look at say, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, as much as there are strong Gnostic undercurrents, those could in sense be attributed to the other texts that entered the canon list in final.
Where then does the rejection of this particular one arise out of? Taking a few possible reasons for rejection - seated patriarchy that rejects a woman's testament, lines in said text that when read in certain light, endorse a non-celibate nature on Yeshua.
Now, for the easiest around, (i.e), patriarchal roots of the order. While kids would want this to be raised to higher orders, the encyclical of 1894 would be a thorn in flesh for such considerations.
The encyclical  that near elevates Mary's position enough to introduce a schism with reformist schools about both her position and her perpetual virginity cannot be brushed off.
There lies yet another related concern of women as the keepers of the faith during turmoil times and was in general usurped by the congregation at large of the other gender is also a sticky wicket on more lines than just this one.
Now, on to the second, the question of the text's supposed undertones of romantic, or at any rate non-celibate contexts might be raised. The qualm here is how strong such currents are, how the can be addressed by easier resolutions like extrapolation, or even, metaphorical structures of the other canon texts in general.
So, what fits better the case of the text being rejected from an alternative view of the entire context? Here, we advance one that is founded on the texts that are rejected themselves - the chapters pertaining to hitherto* secretive teachings, as said by the others of the flock.
[to be continued]
 … she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace.