Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s autobiography Treasure in Clay, which was written just before his death in 1979 and published posthumously, devotes an entire chapter to Sheen’s experience at Vatican II. In his memoirs, Sheen deemed the Council’s document Gaudium et Spes to be "brilliant" (p. 247); he fondly recalled his audiences with both pre-Vatican-II popes such as Pius XI and Pius XII and post-Vatican-II popes such as Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI. Within one year of John Paul II’s election, he was already predicting that John Paul II would be one of the greatest popes in the history of the Church (p. 244).

In addressing the post-conciliar upheaval in the years since the close of the Second Vatican Council, Sheen had this to say:

The tensions that developed after the Council are not surprising to those who know the whole history of the Church. It is a historical fact that whenever there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit as in a general council of the Church, there is always an extra show of force by the anti-Spirit or the demonic. Even at the beginning, immediately after Pentecost and the descent of the Spirit upon the apostles, there began a persecution and the murder of Stephen. If a general council did not provoke the spirit of turbulence, one might almost doubt the operation of the third Person of the Trinity over the assembly. (pp. 292–293)

No. For any sacrament to be validly conferred, the proper matter and form must be observed. Since Jesus did not mandate a specific formula to be used for the consecration of bishops, the Church assumes authority over this. Therefore, when the Church officially authorizes a specific formula to be used, we can be certain of its efficacy. Those who argue that other particular words or phrases are absolutely necessary for this apparently do not fully recognize or understand the authority that Jesus conferred on the apostles.

Not according to Pope Paul VI. In his apostolic exhortation Marialis Cultus (1974), he wrote:

There has also been felt with greater urgency the need to point out once more the importance of a further essential element in the rosary, in addition to the value of the elements of praise and petition, namely the element of contemplation. Without this the rosary is a body without a soul, and its recitation is in danger of becoming a mechanical repetition of formulas and of going counter to the warning of Christ: "And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words" (Mt 6:7). By its nature the recitation of the rosary calls for a quiet rhythm and a lingering pace, helping the individual to meditate on the mysteries of the Lord's life as seen through the eyes of her who was closest to the Lord. In this way the unfathomable riches of these mysteries are unfolded. (Marialis Cultus 47)

It depends on what you mean. The Church does permit a variety of explanations of the transformation of the elements, so long as these explanations do not contradict transubstantiation. In the 1960s it became popular for some theologians to say that what happens to the bread and wine is a transfinalization or transignification.

Transfinalization would be a fundamental change of the entity's purpose (e.g., physical nourishment made into spiritual nourishment). Transignification would be a fundamental change in what the entity signifies (e.g., from signifying food into signifying Christ).

In Mysterium Fidei Pope Paul VI stated that it is permissible to say these things happen on the altar--so long as one says transubstantiation also occurs. In fact, the pope stated that transfinalization and transignification occur precisely because of transubstantiation.

He said:

As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" . . . For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species [that is, what is now the new substance of the elements] is not what was there before, but something completely different . . . the body and blood of Christ. (Mysterium Fidei 46)

There is also room for different explanations of how transubstantiation occurs. So long as one says that the whole substance of the unconsecrated elements is changed into the whole substance of Christ--body, blood, soul, divinity--with only the appearances of bread and wine remaining, flexibility of explanation is permitted.

The statement of Pope St. Pius V to which you apparently refer is found in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum (1570). The claim is often made by Lefebvrists that Quo Primum forbade future changes in the Mass, even those undertaken by a pope.

Quo Primum states:

We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is to be forced or coerced to alter this Missal, but that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remains always valid and retains its full force--notwithstanding the previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription--except, however, if of more than two hundred years' standing.

There are several things to note here. First, Quo Primum was a disciplinary document, not an infallible doctrinal definition on the Mass. As such, there's no reason to think it's irreversible.

Second, Pius V's purpose in Quo Primum was to establish standards for the celebration of Mass throughout the Roman rite, not to determine how Mass would be said until the end of time. While allowing for a few exceptions, the revised Missal of Pius V was to be the norm.

Pius V wanted to ensure that "conservative" priests of his day wouldn't continue to celebrate their own local liturgies at the expense of the newly revised Roman Missal. In other words, he suppressed many local liturgies to establish uniformity of rite according to the needs of his day.

Third, the statement in Quo Primum that "no one whosoever is to be forced or coerced to alter this Missal" wasn't aimed at future priests who might dislike the liturgical changes of a future pope and who wanted to retain Pius V's liturgy. It was a safeguard for priests of that day who followed the revised Missal rather than the liturgy of a hesitant local bishop.

Fourth, when Quo Primum did mention those who were forbidden to alter the revised Missal, it said nothing about future popes. After all, how could Pius V have forbidden his successors to revise his Missal? If Pius V had the power to change the liturgies of his predecessors, why shouldn't future popes have the power to revise his? After all, his authority couldn't be superior to theirs.

Fifth, there's no evidence subsequent popes were aware of any intent by Pius V to limit their pastoral authority over the Church. Since the sixteenth century there have been numerous changes in the Missal of Pius V approved by various popes. Although none were as extensive as those of Paul VI, there were changes, a fact which refutes the Lefebvrist reading of Quo Primum.

The pope’s day-to-day duties are ordered toward the shepherding and governing of the Church. Here is a brief list of some of his regular activities:

• Preaching, celebrating liturgies, and giving audiences to groups and individuals
• With the aid of his staff and curial offices, making policy and pastoral decisions (e.g., choosing and appointing bishops, assigning bishops to particular jurisdictions, regulating liturgical practices, managing the Church’s finances, etc.)
• Meeting with each of the world’s bishops at least once every five years
• Writing and promulgating encyclicals and other documents setting forth the teachings of the Church and speaking out against errors of the modern world
• Meeting with world leaders to promote and advocate peace, respect for life, and human dignity.

One of the major contributions that John Paul II has made to the office of the papacy is that he has traveled more frequently and extensively than previous popes, enabling millions to meet him who would otherwise not get the chance. Pope Paul VI began the practice, but it’s been a defining.aspect of John Paul II’s reign. It made news recently that popes do not receive a salary for their work. The various curial offices provide for the pope’s household, but he himself does not draw a salary.