Oh, it was given serious consideration by the Gnostics, all right. It wasn't accepted in the "surviving history" of the Church. "The surviving history of the Church which was handed down to us" is, in fact, the definition of Tradition.
So, In that sense, we're in agreement, are we not?
So take the question back a step. When the Church used a book, was it recognizing something that would have been true of the book in any case, or was it giving the book something? Could the Church have used Thomas liturgically, and if it had would Thomas be Canon?
Let me try to understand your question correctly: are you asking whether something, anything, could become canonical simply by being used in the Liturgy? No. If that were so, the Liturgy would be considered 100% Scripture, which it is not.
One does look at Liturgy, though, to see what the Church believes from of old. Since the Church (not individual religious enthusiasts, nitwits, and sinners, but the Church as a whole) is protected from error ("...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it")(1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion"), what you're looking for is internal consistency, across continents, cultures, and centuries.
In the words of an ecclesiastical writer in Southern Gaul in the fifth century, St. Vincent of Lerins, here's a practical rule for distinguishing heresy from true doctrine: "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est." What has been believed everyone, always, and by everyone.
How do you detemine that? In your words, "the surviving history." Tradition.
Not really. By all appearances even the Gnostics knew the difference between Thomas and, say, John. It's just modern academics who don't. The only ones who ever disputed the place of the four Gospels were Marcionites, and they took away, not added.
It wasn't accepted in the "surviving history" of the Church. "The surviving history of the Church which was handed down to us" is, in fact, the definition of Tradition.
Please read more carefully. That phrase has nothing to do with "Tradition". It has to do with history in the ordinary sense, i.e., the same way we know about Caesar conquering Gaul.
Let me try to understand your question correctly: are you asking whether something, anything, could become canonical simply by being used in the Liturgy?
No. It's the same question I asked you already: do texts start as Canonical? Asking the same question from the other direction, was John a part of the Canon as soon as it was put down on papyrus, or did it need to be added later?
In the words of an ecclesiastical writer in Southern Gaul in the fifth century, St. Vincent of Lerins, here's a practical rule for distinguishing heresy from true doctrine: "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est." What has been believed everyone, always, and by everyone. How do you detemine that? In your words, "the surviving history." Tradition.
I've heard of that before, and I've always been mystified why anyone would take it seriously. If that's how you define orthodoxy, then by the surviving history (in the sense I intended that phrase in the first place) there's no orthodoxy at all.