According to Catholicism, what is wrong with Luther's doctrine of ubiquity?

One of John Calvin's arguments against transubstantiation and consubstantiation was that the body of Christ, as a human body, could not be in more than one place at a time. His view of the Eucharist was thus one of *spiritual* presence, not *real* presence as understood by Catholics. Luther argued that Jesus's body *could* be in multiple places at one time, thanks to its divine properties, and that this allowed for consubstantiation. This, as I understand it, is known as Luther's doctrine of ubiquity. As a Calvinist with relatively little exposure to Catholicism, I assumed that Catholicism took the same approach on this issue, as transubstantiation seems to similarly require a doctrine justifying the idea that Jesus's physical body can be in multiple places at once. But Ludwig Ott opposes my assumption in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* : > [Luther] explained the possibility of the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ by the aid of the **untenable** Ubiquity Doctrine, according to which the human nature of Christ by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, has a real share in the properties of the Deity, and thereby also in the omnipresence of God. [372, emphasis added] So, I'm wondering—how do Catholics view the distinction between Luther's doctrine of ubiquity and whatever solution Catholicism uses that allows Jesus's physical body to be present in more than one place at one time? What makes Luther's view "untenable" in their eyes? (Apologies if the question is crude; I'm no expert on transubstantiation. If those answering keep that in mind, I'd be grateful!)