My understanding is that the early Church did not have the binary options we have today. To explain, today we look at texts as either "Canonical" or "Non-Canonical." Often, without intention in most cases, this comes to mean "good for you" and "not good for you." The early Church, however, didn't split the texts in this way. It was split more in the "We use this in Church services," "this is good to read at home," and "don't read this." You could say "liturgically read," "personally read," and "avoided." The personally read is where Apocrypha fell. Modern usage of the term has come to mean something far different, and if you ask anyone who graduated from Liberty the New Testament Apocrypha is unholy and evil. (Trust me, I went there). I think it's important that we understand that many, many books and texts can be beneficial to our soul and spiritual growth even if they're not in the Bible (whichever canon your tradition uses). Even books that were written during the first few centuries, especially these books. It is important though that we're grounded in Truth and come to these books to pick the meat from the fat. Like my reading of the Gospel of Nicodemus, apocryphal and according to American Evangelicals "to be cast aside." I went into it with the understanding that it's apocrypha and not used within the Church's services as such glean what's valuable and let the rest go. The description of Christ's descent into Hell and His ultimate redemption of humanity from the very hands of Death is incredibly beneficial. I will likely read it again, and again, and again as that solid reminder of the length that Christ went to to redeem us.