[jo kus]

...Though these writings were read in the churches from the time they first appeared, (emphasis added)

So were many other writings that are not part of ANY Christian's canon today, like the Shepherd of Hermans or the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. Many different letters were read locally. It was not until the universal Church sat down to confront the ideas of such men as Marcion that the Canon was officially defined.

Regards

[fortheDeclaration]

...Though these writings were read in the churches from the time they first appeared, (emphasis added) So were many other writings that are not part of ANY Christian's canon today, like the Shepherd of Hermans or the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. Many different letters were read locally. It was not until the universal Church sat down to confront the ideas of such men as Marcion that the Canon was officially defined.

The local churches knew which books were canonical and which weren't.

The 'offical' lists only confirmed what was already accepted by the churches.

[fortheDeclaration]

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27).
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.html#62