If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?
Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).
All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.
I challenge you to find me one pope before the reformation who even came close to the positions detailed in Dictatus Papae. Do you really think Justinian ever kissed the feet of Vigilius, or that Vigilius had the gall to demand such a thing?
It is an historical fact that the papacy underwent a radical reformation in the eleventh century to fight against investiture and simony.
Ok, ok. First we need to remember that the Church is the body of Christ. As such, the developement of doctrine and the growing of the church in knowledge etc is a normal process:
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men Luke 2:52
So the Church, being the Body of Christ went thru the same process: growing in wisdom and knowledge, when fighting heresies, because of History etc.
And as said Luke Rivington:
“Is the difference, for instance, between the Papal regime of today and the position of the Papacy in the first four centuries of the Christian era more than between the oak and the acorn? Does the difference between the two argue a dissimilarity of constituent elements, or is it merely the necessary difference between various stages of normal growth?
On meeting some one whom we have not seen since his childhood we are often constrained to exclaim, "I should never have known it to be you!" Yet it is the same person whom Almighty God brought into the world as an infant, whose powers and appearance have thus developed. This simile of the child and the grown man, as well as that of the oak and the acorn, was adopted in regard to the Church by St. Vincent of Lerins, the author of the formula (though not of the truth) of the "always, everywhere, and by all," as a test of truth not yet defined.”http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/RivingtonIntro.htm
So now, we should see some examples, that could help us to see if in the early Church and for the first 1000 years, the oak of the Papacy existed or no.
You talked about the Pope Vigilius. Let’s see:
Pope Vigilius of Rome wrote the following in 538 [Letter to Bishop Profuturus of Braga in Mansi IX:33]:
“To no one well-or-ill-informed is it doubtful that the Roman Church is the foundation and the mold of the churches, from which no one of right belief is ignorant that all churches here derived their beginning. Since, though the election of the Apostles was equal, yea a preeminence over the rest was granted to Blessed Peter, when he is also called the Cephas, being the head and beginning of all the Apostles: and what has gone before in the head must follow in the members. Wherefore the holy Roman Church, through his merit consecrated by the Lord's voice, and established by the authority of the holy Fathers, holds the Primacy over all the churches, to which as well the highest concerns of bishops, their causes, and complaints, are ever to be referred, as to the head. For he who knows himself to be set over others should not object to one being placed over himself. For the Church itself, which is the first, has bestowed its authority on the rest of the churches with this condition, that they be called to a part of its solicitude, not to the fullness of its power. Whence the causes of all bishops who appeal to the Apostolic See, and the proceedings in all greater causes, are known to be reserved to that Holy See; especially as in all these its decisions must always be awaited: and if any bishops attempts to resist this course, let him know that he will give account to that Holy See, not without endangering his own rank.”
So, at leat from Pope Vigilius statement, the Oak of the Papacy really existed. Now, is it also true from the view of the eastern churches of that time?
Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:
“Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic... we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.”
Abbot St. Theodore of Studion says in Letter II:63 to Naucratius [PG 99:1281AB]:
“I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
Furthermore, Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:
Church History 2:8:
“Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.”
Church History 2:17:
“On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome.”
So we may disagree on some details about such or such event. But a fact remains that the oak of the papacy really existed in the first 1000 years of the Church. And the fact that some bishops disagreed with the Roman primacy or controversies etc do nothing against this fact. The Divinity of Christ was denied by arians, it does not make it untrue.