which evidence best supports the historical claim that the east-west schism did not begin in 1054 CE, but the mutual excommunication was part of an already growing dividion?

Question

which evidence best supports the historical claim that the east-west schism did not begin in 1054 CE, but the mutual excommunication was part of an already growing dividion?

A. vrusaders from western europe looted and sacked the city of constantinople in 1204 CE.
B. the decreasing power of the pope following the end of the western roman empire in 476 CE conflicted woth the rise of byzantine power in the east
C. the roman catholic church affirmed the idea of papa; superemacy at the first vatican council in 1870 CE
D. the byzantine empire rose as a major enconomic an political power in the western mediterranean region while western europe became more isolated.

Answer 1

A. Crusaders from western Europe looted and sacked the city of Constantinople in 1204 CE. This evidence suggests that there were already existing tensions and divisions between the East and West, as the Crusaders attacked the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire, which was seen as part of the wider Christian world. It shows that the schism did not begin in 1054 CE with the mutual excommunication, but rather was a result of a growing division between the two regions.