I think you may need to consult with someone in your church. The view of the Catholic Church is that the wine does indeed turn into the "real" blood of Christ and only retains the "appearance" of wine.
"That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii).
What you are saying I believe is called consubstantiation and is actually condemned by the Catholic Church.
"Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luther's doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ."
According to the Catholic Church you must indeed be drinking the "real" blood of Christ.
So the question still remains. Did Jesus eat His own flesh and drink his own blood?
I think the Book says He's going to do that later...
Matthew 26:29
I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
nope, I am well aware of the difference between Transubstantiation and consubstantiation....Transub. means the water, wine, and bread actually become the Body,Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ while retaining the appearance of bread and wine.....they look like and taste like bread and wine....but in reality they aren't....and to answer your question, I have no idea of whether or not Christ partook of that meal.