Is Christ Omnipresent?

One of the features of Calvinism separating it from Lutheranism is its view of the Lord's Supper. In the words of the English reformers:

The Lord's Supper is a sacrament, wherein by the giving and receiving of bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, His death is showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of His body and blood, and all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.

This differs from the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation, which holds (as near as I can tell) that while the communion elements remain bread and wine, they take on the properties of Christ's body and blood. So Lutherans would object to the bold-faced text above.

The most powerful argument on behalf of the Calvinist view is that when Christ presented the bread and wine at the Last Supper with the words, "This is my body, broken for you . . .", he was, at that moment, whole in his body. It therefore follows that he intended something other than a "corporal or carnal" understanding of his words.

It seems to me, however, that this reasoning doesn't limit itself to the Lord's Supper. At his ascension, he was also whole in his body, and there is no evidence from scripture that Christ was ever in two places at once. On what grounds, then, would we say that he is omnipresent in the way that God the Father (who is a spirit only) is omnipresent?

Now that I think about it, there is ancillary evidence against Christ's omnipresence. (1) When he ascended to heaven, he promised to send the Holy Spirit. Why would this be necessary if he remained spiritually present himself? (2) The Scripture doesn't speak of the resurrected Christ just wandering around; he has the specific job of representing the elect before God.

All this came up in conversation last night. With more research I might figure out what was the considered view of the church fathers. Or perhaps my readers can help me out?