Why were some Gospel rejected form the bible ?

All the Christian world uses the Bible as put together by the authority of the Catholic Church.

because the Holy Spirit did not guide the bishops of the Catholic Church to include those texts, when they compiled the Bible in the 4'th Century. They studied, discerned, discussed and prayed about hundreds of texts under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for about six years, before selecting the 73 texts God wanted selected.

The men who decided which words were god's, wanted to ensure their own words were takes as if they were some god's.
No words ever came from a god, men first invented the god(s), then put the words in their mouths.

You refer to the pseudoepigraphs. They were deemed non-canonical by virtue of dubious authorship and/or conflicting doctrine.


Luther put them between the two testaments with the inscription that they were acceptable for reading but unacceptable for doctrinal purposes. 

When the church settled on the New Testament canon, in the fourth century, they had four Gospel versions that were widely known and circulated and regarded as authoritative, so those are the ones they included. 
 
There was also a Gospel written in Hebrew, but because Greek was the language of Christian scholars by then, it was not favored. (We may well have part of it, translated to Greek, in the Gospel of Luke.) It was used for centuries by two Jewish Christian groups--one of which preserved the original, while the other rewrote it to suit their own views. But most Christians didn't want Hebrew scripture; Jerome took considerable risk using Hebrew sources even for his translation of the Old Testament. 
 
As for others, they are generally considered "apocryphal," which means "hidden" but often refers to material not regarded as genuine. Many of these were produced by Gnostics, a philosophical group (that also had Jewish and pagan branches) that regarded material creation as fundamentally evil. The Gnostic material was cranked out, with the names of various Apostles attached, some time after apostolic Christianity became widespread, and it's not regarded as representing mainstream Christian belief. Much Gnostic material came to light last century, the "Gospel of Judas" more recently. 
 
There was also a somewhat separate tradition, but one also picked up by the Gnostics, purporting to derive from Thomas. The "Gospel of Thomas" may, indeed, contain snippets of early Gospel source material, collected and handed down by a different path--though we only have most of it in a Coptic translation rather than the original Greek. But the parts not traceable to the four canonical Gospels or their sources don't appear very convincing, and we DO have enough of the original Greek (two pages salvaged from a rubbish heap) to know the Coptic version was heavily rearranged. 
 
There are other, more mainstream Christian apocryphal gospels. At least two were about Jesus' infancy. The more complete one resembles the Superbaby comic books from my youth, about a couple dealing with the supernatural abilities of an adopted son. Amusing, but not very helpful, except for one instance that offers a "scriptural" precedent for grounding your kids when they misbehave. 
 
Much of this material was never lost, or has been found in recent times, and is available in translation. None of it offers much of a basis for considering it worth including in the canon.

Some texts were rejected because they didn't support the doctrine being promoted by those who were in power at the time the canon was chosen.

We compared them to what was passed down by Sacred Tradition and found that it didn't jibe. So, we knew it couldn't have been 100% true or inspired. 

Too silly and superstitious for an already silly superstitious Fairy Tale 

While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E. The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred, stating: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.” He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of the existence of Apocryphal books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by adding: “From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.”​—Against Apion, I, 38, 41 (8).

They were too flawed.