Is the Temple really necessary since the Temple Veil was rent at Christ's death?

This was a great question posted as a comment to the blog, and I thought I'd answer it here to give everyone the chance to read it.
Many Christians regard the rending (tearing) of the veil of the temple at Christ's death as a sign that the temple was no longer necessary. An understandable interpretation, without a context for temple worship. As the commenter shared, she believes that "God tore the Temple veil in two after Jesus died so that the common man can come to Him without ceremony". 

Simply put, I do not interpret the veil as representing the whole ceremony of the temple. I do not believe it was ceremony itself that separated us from God. I believe that the tearing of the veil symbolized Jesus overcoming the things that do separate us from God - namely, death and sin.  Without Jesus' sacrifice, we would not be able to overcome that separation.

The temple ritual was a progressive ceremony, which symbolized man's return to God.  The opening in the veil simply meant that man could now complete that journey, thanks to Jesus. If you've ever read about the ancient temple ritual, you might remember that there was a part of the temple that the Jews were generally not allowed to enter.  In my incomplete understanding, the rending of the veil ended that restriction.

Now, the protestant aversion to ceremony is understandable.  In parts of the old Catholic church, the authority to effect necessary ceremonies was abused and used to oppress at times, and the Protestant Reformation was in part a response to that abuse, for example, in charging for baptism or last rites. The protestant recognition that faith and grace, not ceremony, are what return us to God are comendable and admirable. 

I view the ordinances, the ceremonies from baptism through the temple rite, and their associated covenants (promises) as gifts from God necessary to direct us in our progress towards obtaining grace and becoming fully devoted disciples.