Hi brother Culter,
Thanks for your patience.
As far as the distinction between the AP and HP views, perhaps an analogy will help.
Imagine a car. An engine is absolutely necessary for a car to function as a car.
HP advocates would say the car will only function as a car with ALL its parts INCLUDING the engine.
AP advocates would say the engine is the ONLY thing necessary for the car to function as a car.
Yup, the AP view really makes no sense. AP advocates will say that ONLY the Pope is necessary for the College to have authority. In fact, AP advocates would claim that the divinely-instituted college is not even necessary for the Church as a whole. The Pope, they claim, is sufficient and complete on his own. If you ask an AP advocate, “What is the purpose of an Ecum Council?” their reasoning automatically shuts down, and they cannot conceive of an answer. They can only think in terms of sola papa (just like certain Protestants can only think in terms of sola fide and sola scriptura). The sola papa error is just as damaging to the integrity of the Church as the other sola errors.
AP advocates who have chosen to remain in the Catholic Church (instead of joining their SSPX cohorts in schism) profess to have no problem with the teaching of V2 on collegiality. That is only because they distort (deliberately or not) its teachings to suit their sola papa error. Here’s a classic example.
A V2 Commission, clarifying LG, wrote:
"There is no distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Roman Pontiff is the head of the College, he alone can perform certain acts which in no wise belong to the bishops…"
The second sentence in the excerpt above makes it clear that the distinction as regards “the Roman Pontiff by himself” refers to those UNIQUE things he can do that no other bishop can do WITHIN THE COLLEGE as its head. But AP advocates, in order to preserve and promote their aberration, simply and myopically neglect the second sentence of the clarification. Thus, AP advocates feel justified in preserving and promoting their aberration that the Pope can act APART FROM and even in OPPOSITION TO the College.
You can pretty much recognize the AP advocates when they make such strange claims as “the Pope can oppose an Ecum Council or the College” or “the Pope does not need the consensus of the orthodox bishops or the sensus fidei in order to proclaim an ex cathedra decree,” or some such other hooey that makes the Pope an island separated from the Church or the College.
As far as an exercise of authority in a “personal manner” “versus” a "collegial manner."
When the Pope acts in a PERSONAL manner, he is exercising the supreme authority FOR the College (or members thereof). In other words, he is REPRESENTING the College as its head. On doctrinal matters, the Pope, after due PERSONAL investigation, represents the present preaching of the orthodox Magisterium in an ex cathedra decree; on non-doctrinal matters, the Pope, after consultation with the concerned parties, represents a response to the needs of the concerned parties through a motu proprio or some other appropriate decree. At other times, the College AS A WHOLE (i.e., the COLLEGIAL manner) speaks with supreme authority.
In opposition to this orthodox understanding, AP advocates interpret “personal” to mean “unilateral.” Thus, in their minds, the Pope can act without the consultation nor agreement of any other bishop, and can even act in opposition to the divinely-instituted College or an Ecum Council. That is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Again, I hope that helps. As always, feel free to ask any questions or for any clarifications.